User talk:Kotniski/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Template:Cent

The edit warring on that template needs to stop. It's not for you (or anyone) to decide when there's been sufficient discussion, and I think even the most objective person would agree that just over four days isn't enough given the dispute there. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion you want to link to has already been closed once (reopened by me, but now apparently stalled) - I just want to direct people to the active section and topic of the discussion. That section still links back to the previous discussion, so it isn't being lost.--Kotniski (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably I disagree. I think editors should be able to participate in the discussion revolving around unmerging BTW, not other attempts to unmerge it but with conditions attached (marking it historical/essay, etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 12:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And they can: they will see the link back to that section, so they can choose which part of the discussion they want to engage in.--Kotniski (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You are a pure edit warrior using reverts as a means to push your agenda, and I am tired of dealing with your type. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What agenda am I pushing? It's you who seems to have some massive agenda about date linking, and you seem to want to relate everything back to that one thing. And you're hardly in a position to criticize others for edit warring... --Kotniski (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I don't go off on a tiff too often, insomuchas it takes a whole lot to get my dander up. The matter as to whether or not Wikipedia should continue to be a hyperlinked encyclopedia happens to be one of them. Of course, there's no longer a guideline calling for such a thing, merely an essay, I suppose, but that's fair enough for now. I have great faith in the that in the long run the community will come to its senses and re-embrace this technology.

I would hope you can forgive Mr. Cole -- if I read things right he's embarking on a wikibreak, and whether or not he keeps to that, due to the ArbCom matter, we've all been under some degree of wikistress to say the least. You beat a dog long enough it will lash out at anyone.

I would hope you keep in mind that the real Vandals were not some pack of adolescents who painted the word "penis" on the Roman walls, but were a tribe who destroyed the Roman Empire from within. The real vandals are far more insidious and dangerous to our great endeavour. Although I understand that you have taken a side here, I do not in fact count you among them. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I hope that eventually this whole date linking dispute will be finally settled, and we can go back to talking about related matters in a friendly and reational manner. I don't think you need worry about WP ceasing to be a hyperlinked encyclopedia - this aim is still set out clearly at WP:MOSLINK, and anyway people know about it regardless of what guidelines and essays they read. The only problem with BTW as a guideline (apart from the fact that there are far too many guidelines anyway, so we don't want redundant ones) is that it fails to say anything about what links are not to be created, so it might be misinterpreted as meaning "link everything you can", which is not what we do. Its message lives on at MOSLINK anyway, and as you see, I'm proposing that that page be renamed so it is treated as not "merely" a style guideline.--Kotniski (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Kotbot

I always love seeing bots create stub articles. For new users, creating an article from scratch is a lot more intimidating than merely expanding an existing article. I just wanted to say thanks for creating such a useful tool, and keep up the good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• 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

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Rojas

Thanks for sorting Rojas under two headings - and for zapping the bits of POV that I'd missed :) Hebrides (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A bot removing too many interwiki links -- did you once report this?

Hello Kotniski. Please see WP:ANI#SassoBot. I saw your name in a comment that was filed over at meta on the talk page for interwiki.py last July. Can you shed any light on this? Did you ever get an answer to your question? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:Djsasso. It seems the code for interwiki.py was updated in November, 2008 to allow the hard cases to be skipped, without having the bot remove the links. So maybe that was in response to complaints like yours.. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology

It takes me a while to cogitate. I had hoped that the situation could play out to a quiet consensus, but it looks like that's going to be impossible. I feel quite bad about this now, since it looks like a lot of the issues we had were communication issues, and if I'd just minded my own business maybe things wouldn't be where they are now. For that I'd like to apologise. If you do get dragged into the arbitration, please let me know so I can speak up on your behalf. Hiding T 21:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No apology needed; thanks for showing common sense. I hope that some neutral admin will be able to sort this out.--Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• 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 §hepBot (Disable) at 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

be civil

i would give you a warning over [1] but there isnt an apropreate one.... why cant you just listen to someone who is trying to give helpful suggestions with out snapping back.  rdunnPLIB  15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you were offended, but there is an issue of substance here, and it would be more helpful if you replied to that.--Kotniski (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Im not going to be drawn down to the petty level of not thinking before writing as you seem to have done in reply to statments that I have made.  rdunnPLIB  16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that very civil comment. EOT.--Kotniski (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking

You have now begun editwarring against (long-established) mentions of date linking in guidance. If you're going to behave like Tony and Ohconfucius, you should be grouped with them; so I have proposed you be a party to the delinking case. Feel free to comment. (The question of whether you have behaved better than Locke Cole I leave open, but he is a party.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

See my comments on the "Workshop" page of the date delinking arbitration. This may be a good moment to state how much I admire you for your steadfastness, even temper, and refusal to respond to provocation in kind. Cheers, --Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't understand Sept's accusation - can you (I seem to be forever asking you this question) be specific? (Or link to some page in the date delinking case which will explain things.) --Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here and here.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• 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 §hepBot (Disable) at 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Purda, Poland

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Purda, Poland. Thank you. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cent

Just a note that when you're removing old discussions from this, you should place a summary of the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive. It's linked as "archive" on the bottom of the template. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

{{coord missing}}

Could you please program your bot to add {{coord missing}} tags to your Polish-location stubs as it creates them? See, for example, this edit, where my bot has added the tag to Michałów Pierwszy. Doing this will add the article to an invisible category, which will help other editors and bots track these articles so that they can add coordinates to them later. Thanks, -- The Anome (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's doing this now in the new articles it creates.--Kotniski (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in adding more geocodes to more Polish articles, but have so far avoided doing so because of disambiguation problems: please could you read my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland regarding this, and let me know what you think? -- The Anome (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Prior to 1945 it was in Germany.

First of all - thanks for contributing articles about Poland! Although I can't understand a good reason of adding "Prior to 1945 it was in Germany." to already existing articles about cities in western Poland (or new articles created by your bot).

To be precise on this topic (and I suppose that's what wikipedia tries to be) - this cities were not in Germany prior to 1945, because there was no Germany before 1945 but Third Reich, before 1933 - Weimar Republic.

More imporant is the fact that history of Lower Silesia, West Pomeranian is much more complicated to be caught up in one sentence "Prior to 1945 it was in Germany". It was not - it was (if we want to use current country names) Poland, Bohemia, Austria, Prussia, and Germany in different order.

So here is my kind request for you consideration - please either remove "Prior to 1945 it was in Germany" because it is simplifies topic way to much or (better but requires more work) write about all owners, founders before World War II in two or three sentences. Thanks, and best regards! (Gabrysb (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC))

OK, I know it's a simplification, but given that the articles are generated automatically, it's probably as good as it can get. Of course these are stubs - humans are expected to add more detailed information over time. The Lower Silesian ones were done a long time ago - it would have been good to add at least a link to the history of Silesia; maybe I'll get the bot to add such a link into those articles. The recent ones I've been doing - Pomerania, Warmia-Masuria - have included links to articles with fuller information (History of Pomerania, East Prussia) - I think this is enough, there's no point retelling the whole story for every village. Since these villages were in Germany for as long as a "Germany" existed (up to 1945, that is), and were in Germany's predecessor states before that, I don't find it misleading to say that they were "in Germany prior to 1945".--Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Geocoding

I've replied to you at User talk:The Anome/Gminas for geocoding -- The Anome (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Settlement subtemplates

Hi Kotniski,
There appears to be a problem with {{Infobox Settlement}}'s displaying of area magnitude. See its talk page.

From my memory, I think someone (probably Lightmouse) complained about units of measure being linked, so the link function in the subtemplate [in Infobox Settlement's code] was turned off; which affects the area magnitude part.

I did a work-around @ Template:Mi2km2/test. Can you double check my work-around and change the subtemplate if you feel that it's good? My contributions of late are very infrequent and I may not be back on wiki for weeks. So, that's why I'm asking you to pull the trigger.

And yes, it is/was my intend to only link the metric number to the area mag.

—MJCdetroit ^(yak) 02:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this change be enough to do the trick?--Kotniski (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland

Congratulations. Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland has reviewed your contributions and decided you are an active member. Thank you for your encyclopedic contributions! PS. Please also consider editing your entry in our participants list to state your areas of expertise/interest. I have defined your interests there based on our past interactions as the area of "geography of Poland", feel free to correct it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated version of Infobox Protected area

Thanks for catching the problem. I forgot to check that page in EI. I generally use Firefox. I think the problem is fixed now. I'd appreciate knowing about anything else you notice. I know the heights of the two versions differ a little but that doesn't seems so much like a bug as a "new feature." Thanks again. --droll [chat] 00:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate data

I don't use wiki-mail, but if you put the data in any reasonably parsable plaintext format into a user page, and let me know where to look via a message on my talk page, I can pick up the data from that page. There's no need to make it make sense as wikitext: I can just open the page in the edit window and cut and paste from there. -- The Anome (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Zimnica, Lower_Silesian_Voivodeship

After you removed [2] the coordinates from the article, my bot re-added it as a query found the same coordinates in the Polish language version. I assume both are wrong. Is this correct? If the interwiki links are wrong, the easiest way to fix it would be to correct those. Otherwise, we'd need to remove the coordinates from both language versions. -- User:Docu

Yes, looks like the interwiki links are right, but the coordinates are certainly wrong (probably the east coordinate should be 17 instead of 16). Usually I leave a note at the Polish page in this situation, but looks like I forgot in this case. I'll do something about it now.--Kotniski (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• 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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dab wording

I am following our manual of style Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Introductory_line. I think I have added "Poland" to each of the individual links. In the event that there ends up being another place of the same name (perhaps a place in Russia, Belarus or Ukraine that has been renamed), no one has to check the introduction to see whether it still applies or not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, fair enough, though I don't think the MOSDAB section is intended to say that the introductory line must read exactly like that (there are alternative variants among the examples given there, for example). I still prefer to mention the country once in the introductory line rather than on each individual line (and if someone adds an item from a different country, they shouldn't have any problem seeing that they need to change the top line).--Kotniski (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Geodata

Thanks for uploading the data: I've replied at my talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've posted some more stuff at my talk page: things are progressing well. -- The Anome (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now geocoded the first batch of ~5800 articles, currently only using disambiguation down to voivodeship level. I should be able to get another few thousand when I've been able to push disambiguation down to county level, which will also let me deal with most cases currently too near a voivodeship boundary to classify correctly. At the moment, my best estimate is that about 0.5% of these new locations are errors, which is an acceptable rate for a first pass.

I won't bother to automatically disambiguate to gmina level; instead I will use the gmina tier as a way to check for errors by running a gmina-level clustering analysis to find significant outliers, which I will then either re-locate after fine-tuning the classification algorithm, or, if still unresolvable, simply restore them to {{coord missing}} status to let human geocoders catch them later. This should also have the effect of detecting some human-generated errors at the same time. -- The Anome (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: After performing the county-level analysis using bounding boxes only, I've now removed the poorest fits from the previous passes. This removed about 600 articles, of which I expect perhaps 60 to 200 to be true errors. It's too time-consuming to go through them by hand separating them out at the moment -- I expect most of them will get re-added once I'm able to re-perform the county-level filtering in more detail, treating the counties as areas rather than simple bounding boxes. -- The Anome (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Offense

Yes, you have seriously offended me. (You have just done so again by assuming I had not read the section on which I commented, but that was mere carelessness and bad company.)

You revert warred to merge WP:BTW despite the objections of those who wrote it (of whom I was not one); you did so in collusion with the unspeakable and profane MOS bullies.

If you wish to make peace, agree that when you propose a major alteration of our guidance and get an objection you will

• try an immediate counter-argument, but take no consent for an answer if that doesn't work;
• propose something different;
• or back down; you may have a nice idea, but you haven't persuaded the rest of Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you had not read the section? Well that's how it appeared; we were talking about whether to include a particular sentence in WP:Linking, and you said "by that argument [absurdity that would result if everything were merged]", implying that you thought I had just been arguing for merging.

I revert warred to merge BTW? No, I merged BTW with no objections. Only later did people start revert-warring about it; as I recall, you were one of them. So let's say we're as guilty as each other on that count.

The objections of those who wrote it? I don't know who wrote it; I don't recall anyone mentioning that they wrote it when they objected; in any case that fact wouldn't override the broader consensus.

In collusion with? Unspeakable? Profane? Bullies? This seems to be just more empty invective. I don't know the history behind your hatred of MOS and certain people you associate with it; though you might not be able to get over it, you can hardly expect others to share it.

Your last proposal seems to say that anything I do, if anyone objects and I fail to convince them, I should give in. Well, generally that's what I do. But when something's been discussed widely, when those in favour of change are in the majority, and have the stronger arguments, it seems wrong to roll over and let the minority with their weaker arguments (if any) prevail. This is what I find to be bullying on WP - people who have decided they have to get a certain result, and seeing that the argument is going against them, doing everything they can to force the issue their way - making edits (or even administrative actions) against consensus, insulting their "opponents", derailing and personalizing attempts at rational discussion. Perhaps again we are all sometimes guilty of this to some extent; if I've done it at times (I don't recall any occasion) then I apologize, however I certainly feel that you've joined in with it over this BTW thing (though you will doubtless think otherwise, and I won't pursue it further). More importantly, in matters where we disagree, let's set a good example to others from now on and refrain from drifting into incivility and worse.--Kotniski (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, you've been hanging around with the unspeakable bullies too long. My proposal is not that you give in (although that is a possibility), but that (if you don't give in) you offer an alternative when your first proposal fails to win agreement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

• License update: Licensing vote begins
• News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
• Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
• 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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Gmina Obrzycko

I've reverted some blatant vandalism to the Gmina Obrzycko article; unfortunately, doing this has also removed your recent bot edits, but I can't immediately see how to reinstate your edits whilst still removing the vandalism. Could you please re-run your bot on this article? -- The Anome (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the pointer. I think I've now managed to restore the useful edits without reintroducing any of the vandalism.--Kotniski (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Structured Metadata from Wikipedia

I saw your comment about Persondata. DBpedia has already done a lot of the heavy lifting for articles that contain infoboxes. check it out at: http://wiki.dbpedia.org/Datasets --Rajah (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, this is what I always thought ought to exist somewhere! Any plans to integrate it with Wikipedia's own interface?--Kotniski (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Poland Village talkpages

I believe that all tha pages of villages in Poland should have a talk page. Could you help me with tagging them? I prefer this tag,

. Could you use your bot to do this? Thanks. OOODDD (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I have only limited online time to run my bot, and I'm currently using it for other tasks, so I'd rather not take on the job of adding the talkpage tags as well, at least, not at the moment.--Kotniski (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Boke disambiguation - Do not edit the page yet -- the format is under discussion

I understand you have no patience for the discussion. But you must. The discussion includes a discussion of the formatting.
Proofreader77 (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

FORMAL COMPLAINT re administrator User:Bkonrad and rollbacker User:Kotniski re Boke

(COPY FROM PROJECT DISAMBIGUATION)

Careful and diligent examination of why Boke was formatted that way is in progress.

Changing the page so that what is being discussed is poor form, and certainly beyond the pale for an administrator.

There is no legitimate reason to rush the reformatting of a page under discussion. Continuing shall result in a DR.

NOTE: A DR not for a content dispute — but for outrageous editing behavior by an administrator and a rollbacker.

Dismissive and contemptuous of the community and of process.
--Proofreader77 (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

FORMAL REQUEST: Restore the page to the state it was when discussion began

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Formally noting Kotiski is ignoring all requests, and all discussion of issues

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Boke - WHEN A BOT is in place ... then revert to the July 26 2008 diff

If you want to follow the guidelines, revert to this diff.

I wrote all the other entries to handle the problem. I know what fits the guidelines.

Revert to that diff .. before I "solved the problem" of the libel insertion with large complex page.

BUT WAIT until you have a bot to watch it, OR someone must watch it all the time. Forever.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell us what the problem is that you want solved? Why does it relate to this page and not other short pages?--Kotniski (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm a rollbacker. I've put in a lot of time here, not just mucking with that page. I am telling you as a citizen of the realm exactly what has happened 3 times—REPEATING: the insertion of a large libelous attack into a SMALL disambig... yada yada yada. And I've told you how I "solved" the problem one way. SINCE you won't allow that solution .. then you must solve the problem with a bot.

You did not let the discussion proceed. BUT I assert, as someone who knows what he's talking about, there is a problem that has been contained ... And you are resurrecting it. SO, fix it, your way. BUT fix it.

Get a bot programmed for the page. THEN shrink it. Proofreader77 (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

• Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
• News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
• WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring long title

Since the page is so long, and clearly few will read all that ... it is important to allow a "cutting to the chase" in the index. That is where we are now.

In this case, I request you not refactor the long again, should I replace it in topic form (for the reason stated above). Proofreader77 (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Iw-ref

I thought you might like to check it out, as you suggested a master template as a way forward. –xeno ^talk 01:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good, more or less what I had in mind (better in fact, with all the parameter options built in).--Kotniski (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines

Hi, you supported my WikiProject proposal; I just wanted to let you know that it is now created at Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines. Please pitch in if you can! Rd232 ^talk 14:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Dobryi

This is a good candidate for deletion. It appears twice in Brian L Davies: Warfare State and Society on the Black Sea Steppe. If I don't see it anywhere else, I think I'll ask for deletion. (dating unsigned comment to enable archiving) --Kotniski (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Hey, sorry - which browser are you using, and what was my sig doing? User:M 09:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

IE6 (yes, there are still a few of us...) It was appearing as two boxes and a long strip of grey.--Kotniski (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, had to fix a few other pages too. User:M 09:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Category descriptions

Did you ever see Wikipedia:Category types? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for [3].

Special:Contributions/220.101.2.8 is one for the watchlist, I think (see Special:Contributions/Filsdegilbert, Special:Contributions/220.101.139.240 and Special:Contributions/220.101.79.98 for background). Best wishes, Knepflerle (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Goldfish (disambiguation)‎

OK, I give up, have it your way. I surprised I actually got into an edit war over the includion of a see also link on a disambiguation page. Can I suggest that you also visit the other disambiguation pages and add both the 'titles starting with' and the 'in-title' links as appropriate? Most disambiguation pages have neither. LK (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on the situation. Some (most?) disambiguated terms don't appear at the start of/in the middle of significant numbers of titles, so there isn't a need to have these links (or both of them) on every page. A quick look at the results for Goldfish gave me the impression that each of the links could be useful to the reader in this case. --Kotniski (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

3500 more Polish locations on the way

I've now used the gmina bounding boxes to approximate county boundaries, and after what I hope are some conservative approximations, have matched another 3500+ articles to locations. I've written a sample of these: see the last 100 or so edits by Special:Contributions/The_Anomebot2. Could you review a random sample of these, please, just to double-check my working? If this is OK, I'll write out the rest of the 3500, and will then be able to look at relaxing the membership criteria a bit more in order to find more matches. -- The Anome (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to see these coming in. I've looked at a few random ones and they seem perfectly OK.--Kotniski (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully any remaining errors will come out in the wash at the end of the process. -- The Anome (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

• From the editor: Writers needed
• Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
• Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
• News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Article name for first decades of centuries

Hello, I'm not sure if we've conversed before on Wikipedia, I just wanted to give you a friendly notice that I've revived discussion on the whole "2000s" vs. "2000–2009" issue, and I've requested that we move these articles to the original namesake with "decade" in brackets, meaning 2000–2009 → 2000s (decade). IMO, the current article names are inconsistent with all if not most templates that use "2000s" (i.e. Category:2000s music groups) and the general popular consensus is that the decade be addressed "2000s", at least as of the present. I've found that the actual term "2000–2009" is not notable and is used nowhere outside Wikipedia. As it was you who had originally proposed the change to "XXX0–XXX9" I was hoping you could join discussion on both Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) as well as Talk:2000–2009. Thank you.— ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 23:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oggs

Thanks, I didn't know it should be done this way. I'll follow it in the future. Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Decade naming conventions

Hi! There's a discussion going on at Talk:2000–2009 about changing the naming convention concerning the first decades of each century ("2000s" rather than "2000–2009"). Since you made this revert, I figured you might be interested in participating in the discussion. Thanks! Jafeluv (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

German exonym for Pobiedna, Lower Silesian Voivodeship

Thanks for your swift response (and please forgive my tardy acknowledgement). This is still rather mystifying, and I may need to pursue the matter further at some point. My task involves associating alternate place names for locales in the history of the Holocaust, i.e. prewar, postwar, and during WWII. Very likely I'll be back! -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

• License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
• News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
• WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
• 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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ending RfCs

RfCs that are listed by the RfC bot are also automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days. If consensus has been reached before then, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run.

Manually added RfCs must be manually closed. This is accomplished by deleting the text that you added from the RfC page.

A request for comment on a user, however, needs to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor.

That was not cool. HarryAlffa (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SNOW. We don't have to follow process for process' sake. I hope you will see that this proposal has no chance of being accepted, and having it open and on the RfC list is just distracting people's attention away from discussions that matter.--Kotniski (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Saw WP:SNOW this page is not a policy or guideline itself.

The discussion is still going on, if you'd bothered to read it. Who is we? HarryAlffa (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Help in Discussion Regarding Consensus

You were active on the talk page concerning consensus. Could you provide comments here please? Any opinion would be appreciated: [4].Faustian (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This one. Here's why:

Seemed better to answer your question here than with another edit.

I added both statements to the MoS page because, without them, the article seems to be talking about what is, the way the language works, rather than what Wikipedia has chosen. It is not that double quotes are the way to do things in correct English; it is that Wikipedia has chosen to use them regardless (for the logical reasons provided). So many people read Wikipedia that it's only fair to tip them off that emulating Wikipedia's practices may get them points off their Sociology paper or a funny look from their boss. The MoS seems to be the best place to mention that, even if it is a bit out of the way.

In addition to the aforementioned rational stuff, the statement has the added benefit of showing that Wikipedia chooses its policies not out of favoritism for one particular form of English over the others. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Please reply on the MOS talk page, if interested. rootology/equality 20:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: the MOS page is unprotected, but I strongly advise you to not further any edit warring there. Please review this. Thanks. rootology/equality 21:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You got one of these too, huh. What the heck? It didn't feel like we were warring to me. Wasn't your first reversal because I wrote "inside" instead of "outside" the first time? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess so. But I still don't understand your second sentence, about something being considered incorrect in British English - I didn't see anything in that section that might be thought incorrect.--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd love it if you'd come to the talk page to help me clear this up. By second sentence, you mean the one advising users about the use of double quotes vs. single? Upon reflection, it might have been better to say that either single or double is acceptable in British. At the time, it was my understanding that there would be some British contexts in which double quotes would be considered incorrect, meriting the same brief warning as the use of the stop rule in American English. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Territorial changes of Poland

I've been working on Territorial changes of Poland trying to find links for each Territorial changes. I wondering if you know where I can find out more information about the following Territorial changes:

• The Orawa and Spisz regions that were passed to Poland at Conference of Ambassadors in Spa, Belgium on 28 July 1920. I can't find any references on A)If they were passed to Poland and B) If they were given to Poland why were they requested by Poland

• Can't find any references that say, "an additional exchange of territories in Orava - the territory around Nižná Lipnica went to Poland, the territory around Suchá Hora and Hladovka went to Czechoslovakia. The new frontiers were confirmed by a Czechoslovak-Polish Treaty on April 24, 1925 and are identical with present-day borders."

• Can't find any references that for the 1948 transfer of the Village of Medyka near Przemyśl was transferred to Poland

Any help would be great -- Esemono (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ears burning?

User talk:DefaultsortBot#Unnecessary edits? Hesperian 06:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

lang templates

In this edit summary you asked if there was a reason to use the {{lang}} template. For most users, it won't have much impact, you're right. Someone could use a style on the client side to make French (for example) format differently, so these template empower the sophisticated user for that. But the reason I use them is that they also protect the foreign text from bot edits like WP:RETF, which might otherwise try to English-ify foreign words that look like English typos. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation.--Kotniski (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

German-Polish Border Treaty (1990)

Cześć, pragnę podziękować za Twoją pomoc w tej dyskusję. Pozdrawiam. :) --Thorsten1 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you help me?

I have an argument with others on disambiguation. I want to add some useful information to ACE, NME and PMF, but other people always delete them. The link is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#need_help_on_ACE_and_NME Could you please have a look? Thanks.--141.89.77.122 (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Cliques of specialists

I like your statement at strengthen common name:

cliques of specialists shouldn't be allowed to make their own little rules that override a fundamental community principle.

This problem goes far beyond just article naming. The clique of four or so active motorcycling editors essentially ganged up on me at Talk:lane splitting and went so far as to create two ANIs and a user conduct RfC against me, essentially because they all wanted the article to clearly say something which no sources substantiated (that lane splitting is always illegal in the U.S. except for California), and I insisted that it be sourced, reworded, or removed. I did not detect a WP:OWN problem there, however there was certainly a sense that I was the only one who disagreed with "consensus" (when there are only a handful of editors involved that's another problem - as it's not really a large enough sample, especially if they are all like-minded from working on the same articles together), and that I was being disruptive by continuing to argue against the consensus POV. I have no doubt that they were acting in good faith. The righteous indignation is too thick to not be real. But their refusal to pay heed to my arguments (which of course were brilliant, though apparently not compelling) was disappointing, to say the least. Actually, it was mainly one guy and the others just agreed with him. In fact, now that the outsiders commenting on the RfC have forced them to take a serious/objective look at what was really going on, they have actually conceded that the claim in question requires sourcing, or modification. But there was nothing I could say, no matter how hard I tried, for them to see this within the confines of their little clique world.

I guess I'm just thinking out loud, so to speak, hoping to stumble upon an idea through brainstorming about how to deal with such situations in the future. If you think of anything, please let me know.

Take care, --Born2cycle (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On horses and trolls

Horse may be an issue but I don't think DNFT (if it stands for what I think it does) is an appropriate characterization of the situation... Would you mind retracting? –xeno^talk 15:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how you retract an edit summary, but anyway, I think it sums up my thoughts pretty well.--Kotniski (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a null edit? –xeno^talk 20:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

edit warring report

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

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

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)

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)

Wikipedia 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
• Wikipedia 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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Caution

I saw your proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Concrete_proposal. I'll have a look soon. But I'd like to make a general point first.

Since this page has been protected, by an admin of highest integrity, if I may add, we will not get it unprotected this soon. The thing is that WAS has to participate also. Which he is not so likely to do anytime soon, because the page is currently at a version he developed.

My idea is to wait another few days, probably 2, and then write the admin that WAS is not participating in the discussion. The best thing is of course if he would. If not, then I am sure the admin will have some ideas.

We should not rush, but reach a proposal and consensus first. So please don't take any rash steps till next week. I'll keep you posted what's going on on my side. Is that a deal? Debresser (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. We should also try to get other people involved in the discussion besides us and WAS. I don't think most people would find anything controversial about the changes.--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is my feeling as well. I have posted notices of ongoing discussions on Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion a few days ago already. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• 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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Note

If you have a problem with something an arbitration clerk has done, bring it to their attention. Don't just unilaterally overrule them. There was actually a reason why I just removed CC's reply to Vassyana and this flippant edit summary was not appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Was it flippant? I thought it was fairly well established that other people's comments are not removed from discussion pages - if you had a reason, you should have stated it in your edit summary. I don't know how your being an arbitration clerk is relevant - basic standards of behaviour apply to everyone, especially those in positions of responsibility.--Kotniski (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(I didn't "overrule" you anyway - I moved the comment to the right place, which was the second half of what I presume you would have been intending to do.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Me being an arbitration clerks means that we are charged with looking after the arbitration pages. If a clerk does something which you don't agree with, you come and ask them why they did it and ask them to do things differently. Going ahead and doing it yourself is a big no no. I suspect this quiet word is enough and you won't be doing it again. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you being so unpleasant? Someone in your position really should know better than this, particularly when the original mistake was yours. Explain your views, sure, but do it nicely, not in a way that implies you own the page or can tell other editors what to do. ArbCom is always telling people to be civil - I hope you will be setting a better example in future. --Kotniski (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I've just looked at your talk page and I see why you might not be in the best of moods at the moment - nor am I as a matter of fact. Let's forget this pointless thread and get on with things.--Kotniski (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Per this topic ban against you from the date linking arbitration case, you are banned from all style guidelines and related discussion. Here you made an edit in a style related discussion. I have to warn you that any further edits to the page will result in a block. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have raised this matter with Ryan and the Coordinating Arbitrator, since it appears to have resulted from a misunderstanding of the intended meaning of the remedy. Tony (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Catdesc

Template:Catdesc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• 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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish town articles

I was stumbling through Wikipedia and I came across the article Szczeglin,_Świętokrzyskie_Voivodeship, which was created by you (or your bot's account). My concern is that this article, as well as many of the other Polish town articles that you have created, do not assert notability of the subject. I did a quick search on the Internet, too, and I had difficulty finding any sources on the topic. I'd suggest that you assert notability within the topic and find independent sources (preferably in English) to verify notability, or the articles may be deleted per WP:N. Cheers – DroEsperanto^{(talk|contribs)} 16:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me - certainly no worse than a lot of the American town articles. Orderinchaos 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Emigration from Poland to Germany after World War II

Hi, I've just rewritten the article Emigration from Poland to Germany after World War II. If you had some free time could you check my spelling and grammar? Unfortunatelly its still not as good as I would like it to be. Best wishes Opole.pl (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a look and made some changes. Generally it's not bad. Cheers,--Kotniski (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (2):

I've reverted your unarchiving of this thread because it was clearly stale. Please don't just override what a clerk does - if you don't like something we've done, just come and talk to us about it. In this case, Tiptoety was clearly right to archive the thread and it shouldn't have been unarchived. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, can you tell me where it's archived, so I can link to it? And on what basis was he "clearly right" to archive it? Are there any rules about this? (I did add a link in my comment to show that the thread was still the subject of discussion.) --Kotniski (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I see it wasn't properly archived to a location, but I've done that now and it can be found here. As clerks, we either respond to calls from the arbitrators to archive requests on our mailing list, or as a rule of thumb, we archive them where there has been no input from the arbitrators for at least 7 days - in this case, there had been no arbitrator comments for close to two weeks so it was archived. Hope that helps, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the explanation.--Kotniski (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Restriction

I'm not sure why you're assuming that I look favorably on your appeal; I was the one who gave you the "misguided" explanation for it earlier, if you recall.

My stance continues to be that you were correctly restricted; and while I would not be opposed to lifting the restrictions, in principle, at some future date, I believe it is not yet time to consider doing so. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I get the sense that we're arguing in circles: you don't acknowledge your responsibility in exacerbating the date delinking dispute, and therefore don't accept explanations which are predicated on the idea that you do bear such responsibility.

Given your role in the previous conflict, I want to ensure that you don't go anywhere near anything having to do with the date delinking issue until I'm convinced that the situation has stabilized and that we won't see a recurrence of the conflict that brought us here. Because the various style guidelines involved are so complex and so interconnected, I see narrowing the restriction to only cover "date delinking" itself explicitly as potentially problematic; I am not convinced that, given the opportunity, you would not use other guidelines, which impact the date delinking question in some non-obvious way, to push your view on this again.

Broadly speaking, until I'm certain that the conflict has been fully resolved, I am unwilling to take any risks by allowing you to resume participation in the area. This may seem harsh—and it is—but, given that you helped turn a trivial disagreement into a year-long debacle, I think I am justified in my concerns. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

• News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As you go!

After the successfull reaching of consensus on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories), I'd like you to continue in this vein. That is, make concrete proposals and implement them after a week or so. Of course we should take care to involve a few editors: Vegaswikian and other editors who have partaken in parts of the discussion may be approached on their talk pages as soon as there is a concrete proposal ready. I'm afraid that we'll have to inform WAS also, to keep a semblance he is being contributive. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I hope we can do that. But I'm off on holiday tomorrow, so won't be making any more proposals for a week or two.--Kotniski (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe this?

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Debresser_reported_by_User:William_Allen_Simpson_.28Result:_.29 This is just for your information. No reaction is required. As to what he did on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), I am without words. Let's see what Aervanath will have to say about that. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, are you ready to continue over there with building consensus? There were a lot more points raised that still need to be changed. I am very busy these days, but will actively support all progress there. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Baltic (disambiguation)

I have declined your speedy for the moment because I'm not sure it is non-controversial. Both the Baltic sea and Baltic states are "primary topics" for the term "Baltic" meaning that a disambiguation page is most appropriate at Baltic. If there has been a discussion the outcome of which is otherwise, ok, but I'm kinda loathe to move things around for a major topic without a good reason. The other thing is that there are a good number of links to Baltic. They should be cleaned up anyway to go to one place or another, but linking to a disambiguation page, where the user has to click an extra time, is better than linking to the wrong page. So if this is an appropriate move (which I don't believe it is) it can't be done until the links are cleaned up anyway. --B (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I thought it was obvious (the "Baltic States" are not called "Baltic", that's just part of the name), while the Baltic Sea is often called just the Baltic. Maybe I'll RM it at some point.--Kotniski (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject TRANSWIKI

Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

• From the editor: Welcome to the build-your-own edition of the Signpost
• Board elections: Board of Trustees elections draw 18 candidates for 3 seats
• Wiki-Conference: Wikimedians and others gather for Wiki-Conference New York
• Wikipedia Academy: Volunteers lead Wikipedia Academy at National Institutes of Health
• News and notes: Things that happened in the Wikimedia world
• Wikipedia in the news: Assorted news coverage of Wikipedia
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Oregon
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 10:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

městys

Hi Kotniski - I've done a bit of work on the městys article that you started. It would be quite cool if the městys designation were mentioned on all 192 relevant municipality articles - there is a fully sourced list on cs.wp which could be used, if you know anyone who might like to semi-automate the process somehow. Just a thought! Thanks for starting the article, Knepflerle (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for expanding it:) I'm hoping to create the missing municipality articles for the Czech Republic when the bot gets approval, so I'll certainly ensure that it's mentioned on all the mestys articles that haven't been created yet. Those that already exist will probably have to be edited by hand.--Kotniski (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Czech municipalities

Hi. Haven't seen your Kot Bot creating new articles for a while. I have several thousand Czech municipalities to get onto here like Blažejovice. It will be extremely tedious to do it manually and I would rather they were started utilising as much info from Czech wiii as possible. Would you be interested in helping start them? Note these are third level divisions!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

AHHH bad timing, Have a nice holiday. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm currently traferring articles on municipalities from czech wikipedia but some have been started unfortunately without any real data because I have so many to start but I still have many districts to work through. Basically it is as you did with Poland, start the articles using data from czech wikipedia like from here. the infoboxes are standard on czech wikipedia meaning that the information could very easily be extracted by ot and generated with the info/map etc first time. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Kot, it would make things 100 times easier if you could run your bot on creating these czech municipalities. Every article on czech wiki is standardised so extracting the data and starting each one with decent data should be very straightforward. Otherwise it is going to entail a tremendous amount of manual work going back through them after just to add basic data. This ia really a task that should be done with a bot and I'd imagine it wouldn't take very long to accomplish either. There really is nobody else who is interested in running bots, it is just a shame as a lot of content could be created using bots and done much more efficiently. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll add it to my mental "to do" list. I guess there'll have to be a bot approval though. Can you tell me the categories on cz.wp where these things are to be found?--Kotniski (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cześć Kotniski, after a long time. :) Here you have page about Czech municipality infoboxes. Here is category called "Villages in the Czech Republic", sorted by the region. If you have any further questions, ask me please, as a Czech Rep.-based Wikipedian. :) Thank you for a great job with Polish standardization project, by the way. - Darwinek (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It would awesome if you could standardise articles too like you did with Poland, this task should be much smaller. Ideally we'd like to get rid of those annoying grey geoboxes which have the toxic green maps at the bottom and replace them with standard infoboxes using data from czech wiki. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So are we talking about converting geoboxes to infoboxes, rather than creating new articles? (I remember MJDetroit had a bot that did that.) --Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the main task should be creating new articles and filling missing numerical data to existing stubs. Geobox-->Infobox conversion can wait. - Darwinek (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The main task would be creating the remaining articles or restarting the articles I've already started with improved data/coordinates. So basically it would overwrite Ženklava for example with data and coordinates and map. If you are serious about doing this task then I'll stop creating new stubs. To date I've reached the Moravian region in order in NUTS 3 shown below, working through the districts of each region.

Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, I find it easier for a bot to create articles from scratch rather than overwrite existing stubs, so it would be better not to do any more stubs for now. I'll look into the best way of doing this with a bot. We could do as I did with the Polish articles, if we have coordinates - add a sentence to the text saying the place is x km west/north/.. of (district capital) and y km .. of (regional capital) - the bot can generate that information automatically. But as I say, I am quite busy with other things, so I won't necessarily be able to get down to this immediately.--Kotniski (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah like The municipality covers an area of ... and as of ... had apopulation of bla people etc. What sort of time frame are we talking? If I was to continue manually I could get the rest started within the week but it would take considerable effort in going back and adding details. I can't unddo what I've already started of course... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and make a start this coming weekend. How about pronunciations? For Polish (because the spelling is so regular) it's possible to write a routine that automatically generates IPA representations of placenames (using the {{IPAr}} template). I presume that's possible with Czech too. But that would require a bit more work, so perhaps best to leave it for the moment. --Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, do we have a reference that we can cite for this information (at least the existence of the villages)? Otherwise people come along trying to get them deleted.--Kotniski (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great, that would mean the weight would be off my shoulders a little and I can concentrate on getting these german politicians started on here. If you can find a way to add IPA then by all means do it, whatever is easiest for yourself. I would reference them all to the Czech Statistical Office. I'd ask Darwinek although he may be a few days responding. I believe the Czech Statistical Office operates by region and I believe there are websites such as the Central Bohemian Region statistical office and that. They are all part of the same organization I believe. If you referenced every article to the Czech Statistical Office without an external link this should still be acecpetable and probably easiest. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are still up for running this right? Hey I am currently drawing up lists of Polish politicians by party like List of Democratic Left Alliance politicians. I was wondering if you would be interested in the proposal I'm thinking of making discussed here. I think you would do a great job in transferrong starter content from Polish wikipedia anyway. The project would draw up banks of missing articles by wikipedia and then work towards bridging the gaps between other wikis. What do you think? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is something we should be doing in principle (pointless having information in one language when it could be duplicated to many). About the Czech villages, I've started preparing the ground. I've just asked a few questions at User talk:Darwinek#Czech villages, which you might have information/views on.--Kotniski (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I am going to make a proposal tomorrow at councils so I hope you can offer your input. We need a big project on it as we cannot ignore 12 millions articles on other wikis. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC) OMG you are marvellous. Bílá Voda is frickin perfect!!! Keep em coming. Yes I believe I have done the region up to Olmouc in that regions templates so half are missing. Note also you may have to get your bot to create any missing district templates and categories, I noticed that was possible with Poland... Oh, You have done! If I request that all of the Czech municipalities I started to date are deleted and restarted by your bot would this make it easier? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No I tell a lie I missed out Opava District and Ostrava-City District of Moravian region. If you will find it easy to delete the ones I started and restart them properly with a bot such say the word. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC) I was anticipating a reply. Everything OK? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, everything's fine; I'll carry on creating the articles as time permits. I think I can manage without having to delete any existing ones, but I'll let you know if I need more help. --Kotniski (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are running the bot I'd hoped that you could overide the ones I created and restart them. If that is problematic as I'd say I'd be willing to delete all the ones I created so they can be started better with the bot. Whatever it takes to standardise the articles as one half would be really good stubs the other half crap! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)