User talk:Kotniski/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Bot redirects

Hi! Your bot has been creating redirects to non-existing articles and they are getting nominated for speedy deletion. Will the articles be created or should the redirects be deleted? Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Examples are Jeziorno and Ossówka. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry, I know. There was a bug in the code and the articles themselves were not created. It's fixed now, so the articles will soon be created, but I don't mind if the redirects get deleted in the meantime - as long as the bot is allowed to recreate them when it makes the articles. --Kotniski (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles now created.--Kotniski (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest

See Talk:Polish historical regions. PS. At Template:Administrative division of Poland the red link you removed (to Administrative division of Kingdom of Poland) is now an article, so perhaps you could revert yourself? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Podlaskie Voivodeship / Podlasie V.

I can delete and merge histories; I will do so as soon as you notify me the articles are ready and turn the unneeded one into a redirect.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Russification of Congress Poland governorates

What do you think about this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any discussion. We could start it at talk of Template:Administrative division of Congress Poland or Administrative division of Congress Poland... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox setllement

Hi,

I responded to you at Template_talk:Infobox_Settlement#Overlinking. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Poland-geo-stubs...

... in particular, I was thinking that some of the non-villages articles, such as those on gminas, could maybe also do with having per-county categories, as per-voidodeship is starting to look relatively "coarse-grained", given the sheer number of articles? (BTW, I "request otherwise" on your talk-page -policy -- I dislike missing replies altogether, when they go to a talk page that isn't mine!) Alai (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, your reasoning seems pretty sound to me, on further reflection. BTW, I've created templates for all the Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship counties: if you have your bot use those for the remaining villages, it'll save a little bit of double-handling. If you're also going to be doing the remaining voivodeships on the same basis, perhaps you could leave a note at WP:WSS/P about the incoming wave of articles? Or else leave a message for me. Thanks. Alai (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right, Xxx-geo-stub, or XxxYyy-geo-stubs, as you say, with no space or additional hyphen. I'm guessing that none of these are ambiguous with other levels of subdivision -- much less subdivisions of other countries -- so that should be about as fancy as we need to get. Alai (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. We can go with XxxCounty-geo-stub for those, then. A couple of splits, for example California, use "County-" consistently, but the majority of them skip that. Alai (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I really it seems somewhat inconsistent, but in fact both are the 'intended' behaviours. The point is to have templates for every county, but without having categories that wouldn't meet the (minimum) size criteria. So the idea is to have them "upmerged" until they're of suitable size. Once they are (60 articles or more) the corresponding categories can also be created. I thought I'd made templates for all the counties, but I admit I did get a little confused reading the article on same... there's more than one 'type' of county, or something like that? Alai (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Are they always going to be 60, on a per-county basis? For example, Category:Mogilno geography stubs -- which I'd delibarately left upmerged, for the reasons I just described -- is noticeably under, and your bot seems to have finished with those. Unless you have more to create in the immediate future, I'd propose to re-upmerge that and Category:Sępólno County geography stubs. I assume Żnin you simply haven't done yet. Alai (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Uniformity is exactly the reason for creating all the templates, so that people don't get confused/exasperated at having to play the 'guess which subdivisions have been split?' game; but what category they populate is another matter entirely. I don't see any particular need for creating all the categories, if they'd be under the size guidelines. If there's more to come, I don't mind hanging around for a while to see if they do indeed grow, but if they're long-term undersized, I'll be proposing that they be (re-)upmerged. Alai (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tree of Podlaskie Voivodeship pages

Do you have a file with the tree (with parent-child relationships) for articles with the root as Podlaskie Voivodeship from your Bot? I'd rather not make one if it already exists.

Ajh1492 (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for a linked list or data structure with (village-gmina[rural/urban]-powiat-voidvodeship) for each village. Could be extensible to overlay geographical landforms (rivers, lakes, mezoregions, etc.) or other attributes within the boundaries of the given unit.

Would make it a lot easier to maintain the pages automatically.

Well, I do have lists kind of like that, for towns, gminas and powiats. But I don't have one for the villages in Podlaskie yet, since the bot hasn't got to that voivodeship.--Kotniski (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So kotbot is updating the village page names to be along the lines of [village_name], [county_name ] for example Glinnik, Bielsk County?

It might be better to have them categorized by Gmina. Glinnik, Gmina Brańsk?

Ajh1492 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In principle they should be categorized using the largest appropriate unit, as that is more likely to be meaningful to people. So "Bab, Poland" if there is only one place called Bab in Poland (but there exists another WP article called Bab); "Bab, Xx Voivodeship" if there is only one Bab in the voivoideship; otherwise "Bab, Yy County" or, if necessary, "Bab, Gmina Zz". In practice the bot translates the names used in Polish Wikipedia, e.g. if it finds a village called "Bab (powiat pilski)", and the Polish article doesn't link to any existing English article, then it creates an article called "Bab, Piła County". This method does occasionally give rise to imperfections (mainly because the rules have occasionally been violated in Polish WP, or articles have already been created in English WP which don't have the right tags), but I plan on sorting those out at the end, after all the village articles have been created for all voivodeships (which will take a month or two).--Kotniski (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thus the need for a complete file with each village name and the gimina, county and voidvodeship it belongs to and the corresponding information from PL.WP entries.

Then the decision can be made for each ahead of time and let the Bot just implement it. If the Bot runs into a non-standard condition (i.e. a Village section in the Gmina page or a non-stub page already exists) the Bot loggs it and then a human can look over the entry.

So I say, let the bot run to traverse the relevant Village, Gmina, County & Voidvodeship entries in EN.WP and PL.WP

• look for any existing village names (and try to traverse to the link if it exists
• compare the EN.WP & PL.WP entries (even something as basic as character count and existence of infobox

Then we'll have an "accurate as we can get it" listing of actual pages (not all pages are tagged to the categories). Ajh1492 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overspending

IMO, you closed this prematurely. No harm in letting the discussion continue, especially since the majority of the citations added in an attempt to expand the article are from 1990 data. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

serial commas at MOS

Nice wording, I think. Tony (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And at hyphens. User:Noetica and I co-wrote that and the sections on dashes last year. You've improved it.

What to do about the section on ellipsis? Tony (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I did my best with the section on ellipsis (this edit). What do you think are the outstanding issues?--Kotniski (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Helpbox stackable

Howdy. I was wondering if it would be possible to merge {{helpbox stackable}} into {{helpbox}} as a variable, instead of having two separate templates. Both to avoid unnecessary forking, and because it removes the option of having the boxes float next to one another (something that is occasionally desirable when a page has a long thin TableofContents, or on my userpage (User:Quiddity#navboxen) ;) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no objection from me, although I won't do it myself, because (a) {{helpbox}} is fully protected and I'm not an admin; (b) I don't actually understand why the fix I made in helpbox stackable works (so someone more competent should probably carry out the merge).--Kotniski (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

ProD of Painting/failed article "Painter"

I expect i will remove the tag, wherever our discussion goes, but i'm speculating we can reach a good resolution of the matter short of AfD.
I'm not just quibbling, when i say to you that it is not an inferior fork, but rather the original article and dab, which was abandoned two years ago (in response to surely compelling problems) in favor an ill-conceived fork. That real fork appears to have been the result of either

1. imagining that identifying the "primary topic" for a title is a matter of counting the uses that imply the various senses -- with a blind eye to the fact that the vast majority of users will painter-bios never follow any artist-bio's "painter" lk, and any who do, will do so only at one bio -- or
2. being intimidated by the task of converting thousands of [[painter]] lks in the lead sentences of artist bios into [[painting|painter]] lks.

The history of Painter having started in 2006 was a provocative puzzle for me, and for other future editors deletion would make it a much more onerous one to solve (and an admins-only one). I expected it to be informative, and in fact it is exquisite evidence that the title must be a Dab rather than an article or Rdr, a question that may yet re-arise.
I viewed every edit in the history of the subpage we're discussing (the former but original Painter) and of the fork off it presently occupying Painter, and having done so i'm not sure i could go further (without screaming, and conceivably eventually being driven to assaulting some innocent bystander) by evaluating whether a simple history merge of the two would be too cryptic in the absence of careful talk-page documentation. But i expect the correct ultimate disposition would at least include such a merge.
If i were to tag the two for discussion of merging Painting/failed article "Painter" into Painter, and start the discussion, along lines you presumably can infer from this msg, would you feel the matter was moving toward an appropriate resolution?
Thanks for reading this far!
--Jerzy•t 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You've obviously examined this in much more detail than I have, so do as you think fit and see how people react; but since Painting/failed article "Painter" is obviously an untenable name for a page, it's going to get deleted anyway, so it's probably best if you just go ahead and try merging that material with that of Painter.--Kotniski (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Date

Hi. Your;re making great progress but was the reference access date July 17 in your last batch intentional? SHouldn't it be July 31? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I always forget to reset the date (one day I'll hard-code it).--Kotniski (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard-coding  Done thanks to User:Ajh1492.--Kotniski (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Kotbot

I'm away for the week. Kotbot is being run by User:Ajh1492; please address any urgent notices (e.g. of malfunctions) to him. Thanks,--Kotniski (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Vote on unit symbols for liter

We had earlier been trying to settle on wording to use for a guideline governing the unit symbol to use for the liter. There is now a vote, here at Straw poll on unit symbol usage for the liter to settle on just what it is we hope to accomplish with any guideline’s wording. I hope to see you there. Greg L (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Village pump, Kotbot

I see that Kotbot is creating a great many pages about towns, villages, or hamlets in Poland, apparently sourced only to the corresponding Polish encyclopedia article. In the English Wikipedia a bot some time ago created articles about cities and hamlets based on a U.S. government census database. We know these places exist, because the government did a census of the people who lived there. We have deleted many articles about claimed geographic places or villages because sometimes it is just a street where a developer built a housing development, and is really part of a larger city. In other cases, we have deleted articles about claimed places because they were total hoaxes. The way to prevent this is by complying with the verifiability requirement by citing one or more reliable sources to show there is such a village or town at the claimed place with the claimed name. The US stubs also included population information. The articles Kotbot is creating generally have no reliable source. No Wikipedia is itself a reliable source, because each contains some hoax articles or articles making unverifiable claims. I see no mechanism to go back and delete these bot-created articles if the corresponding article is later deleted from the non-English Wikipedia. "Trust me" is not a substitute for WP:RS and WP:V. Please only create articles having population information and at least one reliable source. It need not be online or in English. I have created a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Bot creating unreferenced articles about geographic places. I have left a request at User talk:Ajh1492, your designated botminder, to turn off the bot until consensus is reached at Village Pump on whether creation of stub articles lacking reliable sources should be allowed. Thanks. Edison (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Addressed out on the Village Pump discussion. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Kotbot improvements

It would be really cool if Kotbot could add {{coor title d}} to the pages it creates. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean instead of the coordinate template it currently adds? (If so, I thought it was already adding the most currently approved one.) Or do you mean it should add coordinates to all pages instead of just some? (In that case, you're right of course, but I don't have the data for all places - I hope GEOBOT or some other source will provide some of them later.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think I visited a page that didn't have a coordinate template. In this case, that's good. I like to be able to click on the coordinates and then choose a satellite images provider so that I can know where in the world these villages are. :) « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Note Trebbien he had done this on many occasions if the coordinates are available see Tarzymiechy Drugie etc. This is more than adequate I think particularly if they can be expanded and referenced later ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: "This article includes information taken from the corresponding Polish Wikipedia article as of 2008-07-17." - Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-31t11:57z

Your argument being?--Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The quoted sentence is under the "References" sections of the articles (including the linked one). Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so you can't link to a Wikipedia article as a reference, the same way you can't link to a myspace or geocities user page as a reference. Articles on Wikipedia need to be sourced to reliable sources per wp:v. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-01t13:17z

Polish Wikipedia is a reasonable source for basic non-controversial information about Polish villages. As our stubs are built up we can find better sources. This isn't ideal I know, particularly in the case of those places whose Polish articles do not explicitly indicate references, but it would be against common sense to have the results of the hard work of other-language Wikipedians left inaccessible to our readers because of over-zealous application of rules on sourcing.--Kotniski (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A request to comply with the English Wikipedia policies for verifiability and reliable sources is not being at all "overzealous.""Please see the topic below "Village pump, Kotbot." I have started a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Bot creating unreferenced articles about geographic places. Please turn off the bot pending consensus of making thes Wikipedia a mirror of all foreign language Wikipedias, when no reliable sources are provided here. Edison (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

KotBot is updated to include a reference to GUS. See the discussion on the Village Pump for details. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add GUS as a reference to articles when it makes no mention of the village the article is about. Edison (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the excellent work you are doing with the Polish sołectwo articles. Keep it up, and don't let anyone discourage you from this useful work! We have your back. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 09:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion wis mindless anyway. Could we have the bot add the source to its earlier articles? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The objection was hardly "mindless." Please remain civil. "The source" was typically an unreferenced stub in the Polish encyclopedia, in which a dot on an online map was made into a stub article which gives only the name of the dot and the grid coordinates and the administrative unit it is in. No area, and more important no population, as the bot authorization [1] said would be included. Perhaps the villages should be mentioned in the article on the next higher geographic unit, which does have a reference in GUS and which does have population figures from the census, and only break out village articles when referenced information (beyond dot coordinates) is found. Edison (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dziendobry

Hi, I would like to suggest that "having a go at rewriting"] guidelines might be better done on the talk page rather than the main page. I disagree with some of your revision but imho would be better discussed first. Dziekoje. Abtract (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just revert the ones you disagree with (or raise them on the talk page) and we can discuss them.--Kotniski (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is a problem ... I don't want to start mucking about with it on the main page so I have reverted it all and suggest you take it to the talk page, get agreement, act. Abtract (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could say what it is you disagree with. My intention was to change the wording to make it clearer, without changing the meaning. Do you think I've inadvertently changed the meaning somewhere, or do you not agree that my wording is clearer? (No offence taken either way.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact I think the existing wording (with minor tweaks) will be OK now I've moved the section about primary topics up towards the top of the page. It was the fact that this concept hadn't been explained that was making everything incomprehensible.--Kotniski (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Little note

Witaj! Just a little note for the future. Can you please change your bot, so that the link to Polish Wikipedia article will be under "Notes" section, instead of "References". We (WP users) are not supposed to cite wikipedias, as per our guidelines. Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, work is underway to improve the reference section (following objections from a number of editors). Hopefully when the bot is next restarted it will contain a reference to an official document instead of Polish wiki.--Kotniski (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Another little note

On a similar theme, it would be great if you could change the way your bot adds references to sources in the Polish language, to avoid adding links to dab pages that then have to be fixed manually. For example, this line:

* [http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/45_655_PLK_HTML.htm Central Statistical Office (GUS) ''Population: Size and Structure by Administrative Division'']<small> - (2007-12-31) (in [[Polish]])</small>

was included as part of the page Mąkoszyn, Łódź Voivodeship it created on 8 August. Because the line reads [[Polish]] rather than [[Polish language|Polish]], the link is created to the disambiguation page Polish rather than directly to the article about the Polish language, and as you can see at our Project page, there's a huge backlog of such dablinks being slowly cleared. If you could amend your bot to write all such links as [[Polish language|Polish]] in future runs, it would be much appreciated. Thanks :) Karenjc 22:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot still adding the Polish Wikipedia line

Hi Kotniski,

Remember when I said there was "no real support for putting the sentence about the Polish Wikipedia in every stub, since the pl interwiki link is sufficient"? The bot is still doing it.

Thanks,

Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

GEOBOT

Hi do you know any editors who would be willing to run the GEOBOT that was approved?. It might not be a bad idea if a few editors with a knowledge of computer programming and bots who could be running it, after all we have a project set up to run it and it seems unfair for us to expect to depend on Mr. Fritz to run it alone. Do you have a knowledge of bots and how we would go about running it for other countries besides Poland? Ideally I had wanted to draw up a detailed world list of settlements with global coordinates in a table as was originally proposed. The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

We should reach a consensus on the talk page before further modification to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). A few editors who have participated heavily in the debate claim there is consenssus, when in fact there is not. (sdsds - talk) 10:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:MOSNUM. (sdsds - talk) 10:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

GG

Feel free to drop me a line on Gadu-Gadu one of those days! :) My contact info is on my userpage.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Kotbot.

Veuillez faire cesser immédiatement la folie de votre robot « Kotbot ».

Budelberger (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC) ()

Et réparer les dégâts occasionnés, trop importants pour moi. --Budelberger (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC) ()

C'est a dire quoi exactement? Quels dégâts?--Kotniski (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

OK maintenant je les ai vus et je comprends, ma faute, je m'excuse. Je les aurais repare dans quelques heures mais Vous l'avez fait avant de moi. Tout est sous controle maintenant, je regrette les problemes. S'il y a plus d'erreurs de cette sorte, je attends que je les trouverai bientot, si non veuillez m'informer. Salut,--Kotniski (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Gajewniki-Kolonia

May I ask you why did you revert my edits? The IPA pronunciation is completely wrong, I've added some more information. Timpul my talk 10:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

SOrry, I re-added the information. But what do you find wrong about the pronunciation? (It's a template, so look at it on the article, not on the edit window.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's compare my and your version:

[gajɛvˈniki kɔˈlɔɲa] - my (template) version
[gajev'ɲikʲi kɔ'lɔɲʲa] - your version

• Polish e is [ɛ], not [e]. (that's what the template version says)

• N before i becomes [ɲ]. (not sure that's perceptible, but OK, let it be)
• The ending -nia should be read as [ɲʲa], due to its historical origin (compare Silesian -ńijo and Upper Sorbian -nija). (as above)
• Soft [ʲ] after k is optional and can be ommited. (so no need to complicate things)

The info about belonging to the Sieradz Voivodship is taken from the Polish Wikipedia and for me is also recommended here. Regards, Timpul my talk 10:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I deleted anything about Sieradz, I didn't mean to. About the pronunciation, I've added IPA brackets around your versions above, otherwise they don't show up properly on many browsers, including mine. My comments are in italics. Put whatever version you prefer in the article, but please include the IPA brackets like I've done above, or else use the IPA-pl template (but I don't think it supports the superscript j's). Pozdrowienia, Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

About e - you speak some Polish so you should hear the difference ;)

• - [ɛ]
• - [e]

Timpul my talk 10:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you meant what you wrote above ([ɛ], not [e]) then I agree with you, and so does the template. That's also what the article on Polish phonology says. --Kotniski (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Geography Barnstar
		For creation and operation of the Polish geobot, Kotbot, I am proud to present you with the Geography Barnstar. May your stay on en wiki be long and enjoyable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

eu:Txantiloi:Geografia izarra

Fraudulent article copied to Polish Wikipedia

I noticed that Polish Wikipedia wound up with a copy of Autumn Goodbye, which was deleted on English Wikipedia as a hoax article. You might want to let someone over there know.Kww (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info. I left a message over there. --Kotniski (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

MoS talk page discussion removal

I really dislike how you removed the discussion section that I added to the MoS dates and numbers talk page. Do you have an explanation for this action, besides "removing useless transclusion"? I'd like to understand why you would feel the need to remove that section from the discussion. — OranL (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there wasn't any discussion there, so it just got in the way. If discussion has now started on that subpage, then we can certainly link to it, but I still see no need to transclude it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

How can anyone find the discussion unless it is on the talk page? — OranL (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Using a link from the talk page? Or just having the discussion on the talk page, which is what people seem to be doing.--Kotniski (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that using a more organized, centralized discussion process would be more efficient at resolving the autoformatting issue than spreading discussion over several sections. The sections seem to sprawl out and become unwieldy, especially for those who are trying to get a summarized idea of how the discussion is going. Either way, I guess the discussion seems to be going better than before. — OranL (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

just ec-ed with you @ mosdate with a blank edit, i was talking to ckatz in the summary, if it isn't clear. 86.44.27.255 (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Because you are a regular, I will not template you, but I think it would be a good idea if you review Wikipedia's policies and guidlelines at WP:3RR and WP:Edit war. As for the edits on Hannah, if you wish to add redundant information, please discuss it on the Talk page rather than repeatedly unilaterally deciding to re-add the same information without discussion. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You are unilaterally removing it without discussion, so you're as guilty as I. In any case, if you look at the edit history you'll see I'm not the only one who thinks this information should be there (in fact there were people who even wanted a third item, and argued for it on the talk page).--Kotniski (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus. So you might want to add WP:CON to your reading list. I have added an item of discussion on the talk page. Please add your comments there. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Penny Drake

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Penny Drake, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Penny Drake

I have nominated Penny Drake, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny Drake. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

dates dates dates

I hope you don't mind that I hacked away at the wording, not to change the meanings you'd created, but to try to find a way of expressing them more simply (possibly a vain attempt). I did as you suggested and filled in a few holes. Please revert or modify as you see fit. It would be nice if only you and I tampered with the wordings and negotiated with others on the basis of their comments. That might prevent chaos. Tony (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably best if two people with opposing views (like you and Pete) do it, to avoid accusations of bias. Anyway I'm trying to tear myself away from WP to get some work done;) --Kotniski (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Helpbox stackable

Hi. I was just looking at the code for {{helpbox}} and {{helpbox stackable}} again, and the only difference is the "clear:right" style. This is already possible with the normal helpbox (using the {{{1}}} variable): you just need to add |clear:right to the template when it is needed, eg {{Policy list|clear:right}}. See my sandbox for demonstration.

I'd like to remove this template fork, if possible, as it seems unnecessary. It seems to be used in only Template:Policy list and Template:Guideline list currently.

Does that make sense, or have I missed anything? (I'm not sure which page's layouts were you trying to fix by creating {{helpbox stackable}}.) If it makes sense, could you fix the instances that need it, and then {{db-author}} the template fork (and its docs page)?

Much thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to make sense, but I can't make it work the way you suggest. The page in question is WP:Policies and guidelines; I've used a simpler solution, just adding a {{clearright}} template on that page. I'll db-author hepbox-stackable once the What links here list shows up as empty (as I presume it will when the cache clears).--Kotniski (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind having a look at my proposal for a preference survey here? We'll get nowhere lumping together a few possible permutations, witness the number of people voting no to anything in the latest tabular incarnation. Three table are required, I think—one for each of the class of article at issue. Tony (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Had to save a copy of that

[2] Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)‎; 07:14 . . (-538,809) . . Kotniski (Talk | contribs) (subpaging (please wait for explanation before reverting))

I've never been so glad to see 540KB go somewhere else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You linked the dates here, so they come out looking the same per my user prefs; to show what you intend to show, you have to delink them (isn't that why we're here?). [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to emphasize the fact that I was talking about linked dates. (Presumably people who have the autoformatting enabled know what I'm talking about already.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for clearing MOSNUM talk

Long overdue! Perhaps that will freshen people's minds up to move to a decision on this accursed question. I don't care much whether it's engvar or existing or first-major-contributor as the first gate, just that a decision be made. I fear a huge backlash if US editors' work on non-US-related articles is converted to international. Tony (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Translating Tarnowskie Góry

Hi I wondered if you could help translate this from polish wikipedia. The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Olszewo

It was part of smaller gmina Topczewo in 1939. Gmina Toczewo powiat Bielsk Podlaski, województwo Białostockie to be exact. Now Topczewa was merged in Wyszki. Olszewo likely doesn't exist anymore as half of the people there were already murdered by Germans in 1939 September. Please restore the information. --Molobo (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case it was presumably the Olszewo which is now in Gmina Brańsk (it's a few km south of Topczewo). I'll transfer the information to there.--Kotniski (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If you see any other corrections to be made please do or tell me so. In the meantime, Olszewo has its own entry and the information can be moved there.--Molobo (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

Re: your revert of the informative text describing that dates are being delinked ...

If the date style guide is not the place to let the average Wikipedia editor know what is happening with delinked dates, would you please explain where that place is? Isn't it important to let people know what is happening and try to avoid all of the continued discussion that is taking place? See, for example, this comment "But the style guide does not anywhere call for mass delinking of dates. The bot is making disruptive edits that are not consensus." left on User talk:Lightmouse. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how telling people what's happening will avoid the discussion (it will probably increase it if anything). But I've nothing against telling people what's happening; I just don't think it should be done on a guideline page, which is supposed to provide stable guidance on writing WP articles. Such "news" can be announced at the community portal, village pump, centralized discussions, relevant project pages, and so on.--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot comment

Please see User_talk:Kotbot#Interwiki.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Ziemie Odzyskane

Dzięki za poprawę wczorajszego tekstu. Niby język angielski nie sprawia mi większych trudności ale nad gramatyką muszę trochę popracować.

Zgodnie z twoją prośbą uzupełniłem część dotyczącą zachodniej Wielkopolski i Pomorza o informacje w jakim czasie była to część Polski i kiedy od niej odpadła.

Co do księstw Śląskich to w latach 1327 - 1329 zostały one zhołdowane przez Jana Luksemburczyka. Po wygaśnięciu danej linii Piastów były one albo nadawane innym władcom (Habsburgowie często nadawali je swoim wierzycielom aby spłacić w ten sposób zaciągnięte u nich długi) albo wcielane bezpośrednio do korony czeskiej.

Cała sprawa jest jednak dosyć skomplikowana, otóż Jan Luksemburczyk pierwotnie zajął te tereny w trakcie swojej wyprawy na Kraków przeciwko Władysławowi Łokietkowi. Nie było jego głównym zamiarem przyłączenie Śląska do Czech ale zdobycie całego królestwa Polskiego gdyż jako następca Przemyślidów (Wacława II i III) uważał się za dziedzica polskiej korony. W 1327, tytułując się Królem Polskim, nadał nawet oficjalnie Zakonowi Krzyżackiemu, zajęte przez nich w 1308, Pomorze. W 1329 zdołał on ponadto zhołdować książąt Mazowieckich. Dopiero w 1335 zawarto układ pomiędzy Kazimierzem Wielkim i Janem Luksemburczykiem na mocy którego za 20 000 kóp groszy praskich Jan zrzekł się tytułu króla Polski.

W 1339 Kazimierz zrzekł się na rzecz Jana Śląska i księstwa Płockiego (część Mazowsza) (które mimo to zostaje włączone do Polski w 1351). Jednak już w 1345 rozpoczyna wojnę o Śląsk. Kończy się ona w 1346 pokojem w Namysłowie. Polska uzyskuje na jego mocy Namysłów i Wschowę. Ponadto biskupstwo Wrocławia wciąż pozostaje w Archidiecezji Gnieźnieńskiej do 1821, a Karol IV w 1360 zobowiązuje się zaprzestać staraniom o przejście tego biskupstwa pod metropolię w Pradze.

Jak widzisz sprawa przynależności politycznej części ziem odzyskanych była jeszcze w XIV wieku nierozstrzygnięta. Oficjalnie zaś każdy król Polski w trakcie swojej koronacji ślubował, że zrobi wszystko co w jego mocy aby odzyskać utracone tereny. Jednakże po wygaśnięciu dynastii Piastów w Krakowie zainteresowanie nowych władców skierowało się głównie na wschód.

Nie wiem jak u ciebie z Polskim, jakbyś nie wszystko był w stanie zrozumieć to napisz a ja Ci te fragmenty przetłumaczę na Angielski. Pozdrawiam Opole.pl (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dzięki za informacje - nie będę miał problemów ze zrozumieniem, ale musiałbym trochę "trawić" to wszystko. Jeśli chcesz to umieszcz odpowiednie fakty w artykule, a ja jak do tej pory będę robić korektę jezykową. Pozdrowienia, Kotniski (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Umieszczenie tego wszystkiego spowodowałoby spore zachwianie układu artykułu, zwłaszcza, że to jeszcze nie wszystkie informacje na ten temat. Można by zastanowić się nad stworzeniem nowej jednostki redakcyjnej opisującej inne argumenty wykorzystywane przez władze PRL aby uzasadnić polską obecność na Ziemiach Odzyskanych. Tam można by dać informację o metropolii gnieźnieńskiej, o mniejszości polskiej na Śląsku (na górnym była to większość, na dolnym w XX wieku ograniczała się do rejonów Namysłowa, Milicza i Sycowa) o Maurach (którzy pochodzili z Mazowsza) i Słowińcach.

Ponadto dla uzasadnienia tego stanu używano też teorii "Korony Królestwa Polskiego" - Terminem Korony Królestwa określano często nie tylko ziemie rzeczywiście znajdujące się pod władzą króla polskiego, ale także te do których roszczono sobie prawa, czyli przede wszystkim Śląsk i Pomorze Gdańskie. Do Korony wliczano także stanowiące (pomimo podejmowanych przez lokalnych książąt prób usamodzielnienia się) lenno Polski Mazowsze. por link do plwiki. Co do obietnicy odzyskania utraconych ziem por. np Unia w Krewie 4 akapit unia w krewie. Pozdrawiam Opole.pl (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

Hi Kot. Nice work to date with the bot. However can you please alter your bot slightly so it creates articles with the following parameters added to the infoboxes at the top. For example see Chlewice, Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship and how the parameters work in it. Given that there are many photographs in the commons which need putting in the new village articles you;d make life easier for editors who want to add them to the infoboxes by adding this near the top:

| image_skyline=
| imagesize=
| image_caption= Thanks The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also. given the problems with WP:Flag and editors who obessively remove them can you alter it from {POL} to {flag icon|Poland} instead so editors can have the choice to hide them in their browser. Thanks The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ...

...for your patient copyediting. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

1900s

Hiya Kot. I'd prefer "rarely" at 1900s too. Neither of the 2 ghits mentioned is a reliable source, and when we say "rarely" in article space, we mean "rarely in reliable sources". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but the Google evidence presented by Arthur implied that the decade use was actually "more" common than the century use in the case of 1900s. That being the case, I thought we should be more cautious in announcing "rarely" unless we can convince ourselves that usage in reliable sources is different.--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you're just being careful, we can wait til the results are in. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOR

RE your edit summary here:

The passage in WP:SYN was very recently changed here, after which I modified it here and here ... Kenosis (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, my comment of 00:05, 3 October 2008 was intended to be with a bit of humor. Having seen the discussion and thought about it, I happen to agree that "refer to" doesn't as squarely capture the essence of the policy as do phrases like "directly related", "in the same context as", "in direct connection", etc. I'm beginning to think participants there have gotten a bit stuck quibbling over a relatively very minor issue, because AFAICT no one has put forward any evidence of a situation where it's been a real issue. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

On The Bank Job

Hiya Kotniski!

You've re-inserted my deletion of the anachronism section on the article of The Bank Job. I couldn't find any guidelines that either supports or disapproves of such sections on Wikipedia, so I've started a new discussion. Care to join in? You'll find it here. Kind regards, --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Decades

I have replied to your comments at Talk:2000s. Unschool (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain your role, if any, in loosing the robots on wikidates?

Could you please explain your role, if any, in loosing the robots on wikidates? Are you merely claiming it was justified, without playing an active role in loosing the robots? Geo Swan (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was quite active in pushing through the change to the guidelines that "deprecated" the linking of autoformattable dates. I have nothing to do with any bots in this field, though I fully support what I've seen them doing.--Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this info.

Are you aware of who was responsible for loosing the robots without making an effort to do so in an open and transparent manner?

Are you aware of whether those responsible discussed ignoring the interests of the 99.9% of the wikipedia's good-faith contributors who were unaware of the most recent discussion, and all the earlier discussion?

The most recent comment in the thread on the village pump voicing concerns that are too late -- if the discussion on the manual of style talk page is considered to represent the community consensus. However, given that 99.9% of the wikipedia community was unaware of this discussion I believe it can be argued that the conclusion of that discussion did not represent the community consensus.

I don't mean to flog a dead horse, but I am going to repeat a point I made you haven't responded to. You claimed your view was "obvious". Nothing is so "obvious" that one can't ask for meaningful attempt at an explanation. You may not realize that your comments are dismissive of the value of your correspondents' informed participation in the wikipedia's decision making. Would you please refrain from making dismissive claims of "obviousness" -- in the interests of trying to preserve the wikipedia's collegiality? Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation page change

See here. As you removed that bit of text, I'm asking you first (to get your opinion over there) before I tell the others in that discussion about this. Hopefully they will all pop back and see what I added, though. Carcharoth (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Decadebox

I can't check at the moment, but I think Decadebox BC needs to be -1-{{{1}}}, because 0s BC is not 0s AD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There's something not quite right, certainly. I'll be working on it.--Kotniski (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable matches

As you have restored the inherently POV section to the Justine Henin article, I would ask you to discuss this on the article's talk page. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page. Perhaps you'd be interested to know this is being discussed in general at WT:TENNIS as it's been a problem with a number of articles. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Template protection

I've reduced the protection to semi, as you requested here. Please let me know when you've completed your changes, or request the full protection be restored at RFPP. Regards, لennavecia 03:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think you can restore it to full protection now - admin Arthur Rubin will probably make any further changes that become necessary. Please could you also protect the subtemplates that it uses, namely {{dr}}, {{dr-yr}}, {{dr-make}}, {{dr-logno}}, {{drep}}. Thanks again,--Kotniski (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Current fracas at MOSNUM over date-linking

Kotniski—you may be interested to know that this flared up from Lightmouse's talk page. Tony (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Script bug

Now fancy you, with a user-name like that, watchlisting "Silesia". Yes, it's just come up on Lightmouse's page and MOS talk; I don't know why it hasn't been noticed before. I'm just about to go to bed, so could you revert if necessary? Lightmouse is surely fixing it as a priority, and I'll watch for it until this function is disabled. (I've learnt something about categories through this.) Sorry for the trouble. Tony (talk)

No problem, I've already changed it back.--Kotniski (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Silesian Piasts

Hi I have just "rebuilt" the Silesian Piasts article. Could you take a look and correct my spelling and grammar errors. Of course if you have some additonal data you can add some new info. Z góry dziękuję i pozdrawiam Opole.pl (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks, now we can honestly say that it is written in English. Pozdrawiam Opole.pl (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Closure of WP:GEOBOT

Regrettably I have come to inform you, that this bot project will not go into operation and therefore the project will be closing down. Thanks everybody for their time and support but there is a clear reason why it failed. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

IPA-pl

Don't know if you're watching my page, but if you want to add the brackets to IPA-pl, I'll AWB all the articles it transcludes to and remove any extraneous brackets. kwami (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. 25,000 pages? I unvolunteer! If you ever decide to go this route, you can request a bot do it. kwami (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Landesausbau

I noted and appreciated your c/e at the Ostsiedlung article. I was not all happy with "rural development" either, but I don't think "consolidation" is more close. "Ausbau" means that you do not create sth completely new, but improve/extend/enlarge/develop a given structure. "Land" is either soil, countryside, area or political entity. I found it hard to put this into a short, comprehensive English term. I will ask at the German-speaking wikipedians' board for a proper translation, maybe a corresponding English term exists. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hello, I've noticed for the last several weeks you have been edit warring at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground and we operate under the principle of discussing changes to reach consensus. None of us own any of the pages on Wikipedia and edit warring, even if one is certain they are correct, is never acceptable. I fear if you do not stop edit warring that I will need to block you for disruption and edit warring. MBisanz ^talk 15:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident I can trust you to determine who's being disruptive at that page. I'll stay away from it for a while, anyway. --Kotniski (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Note

Hello, Kotniski. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN#Review. Thank you.MBisanz ^talk 20:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Horse breeds template

Kotniski, I just realized that people aren't using the Horse infobox template on the main page, they are mostly cutting and pasting the simpler syntax that appears on the talk page. So, the template may not actually be updating at all. Don't fret, we only have 350 horse breed articles like this, not all have the infobox...! Montanabw^(talk) 11:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what syntax they use; the template should update anyway if the breed standards aren't provided. If such standards are present in the infobox, then it should look exactly the same as it did before my changes. Let me know if you notice any problems. (Sometimes a page doesn't update immediately on loading, if there's an older version stored in the server cache, but that should sort itself out over a few days.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole

Just ignore User:Locke Cole. He doesn't want to play by anyone's rules except his own, so it makes no sense to play with him. He's been edit warring on a number of articles, and is now threatening to take a bunch of us to arbitration for de-linking article dates just because he disagrees and can't hold back the tide of delinking. I'm just waiting for him to be blocked per WP:3RR Ohconfucius (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 12 hours for edit warring on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). On November 12 you were warned for edit warring on one of those pages, and you acknowledged that warning. Unfortunately, you continued today with further reverts. Please review WP:EDITWAR during your block. If you wish to contest it, please place {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page.

Given you have never been blocked, your block will only last 12 hours. I trust that you will pursue dispute resolution in the future rather than edit war. Regards, - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since it's about to expire anyway, I won't bother contesting it, but the fact that I once accepted an edit-warring warning about one page is hardly a reason that I shouldn't perform a single revert on any other page ever (and I didn't revert anything on the page the warning referred to). --Kotniski (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Commiserations on having a block imposed, Kotniski. An unpleasant affair all round. I hope you will continue your fine work at WP:MOS and associated pages.

While I'm here, I urge you to think again about curly quotes and apostrophes, if you are still impressed by the arguments of their advocates. Those arguments are quite simply insufficient, given the heavy burden such characters would impose on editors. Equivalent characters, like straight and curly quotes, must be jointly searchable locally in text to keep pages editable. No browser I am aware of has a search facility like that. And the advocates of typographic propriety still do not explain how the average editor is expected to input the damn things. Of course I use the typographic variety in all my other work; but they bring nothing but chaos here.

All best wishes to you.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yes, I understand the problems with curly characters, but I don't really see that the situation is very different from that with the en and em dashes (except that the curlies are generally less likely to be an aid to understanding rather than just appearance). My preferred solution, though, would be a software-based algorithm whereby these characters would be converted to the correct typographical ones automatically, so no-one would have to enter them, and they wouldn't obstruct searches in the edit box at least.--Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

I don't care which of you two is right, however another revert or close will cause me to block you for disruption. Please stop now. —— nixeagle 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds rude, but people who don't care which of who is right should probably not be administrators.--Kotniski (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well frankly I don't care at the moment, nor do I have the time to figure it out, however constantly closing is not helping matters. Make a comment if you care so much that you think it should be closed. Continuing to do the same edit repeatedly is disruption regardless. —— nixeagle 20:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult to figure out; read WP:Speedy keep (which I thought was the sort of thing that admins were supposed to know about - ah well, maybe I should apply after all). --Kotniski (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Allow an admin to close this, rather then reverting your close. Again I don't care, I just want you to stop being disruptive by trying to enforce your point of view. Trust me, it will all shake out depending on what the community thinks is the proper action. If I have time later I'll look myself. —— nixeagle 20:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The point of my actions was that nominations like this are disruptive - it says so on the very page where the nominations are made, and the speedy keep guidelines are quite clear about it as well. As an admin I would have expected you to know this, or at least to accept it when it's pointed out to you. Oh well, no more time to argue today, but this doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the system (not that I had much to start with).--Kotniski (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make right. and for your information another administrator has closed the MFD. —— nixeagle 20:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Being right does not justify disruptive actions. Even though you were right (its a procedural keep, we don't hold deletion discussions on policies and in this case, a guideline), reverting is not the proper way to handle it. Discussion should begin before its reclosed (words to think on). And as such, Nixeagle is not worried about who is right or wrong in this situation, he only wants the disruption to end. Don't drag things on to justify your edits. Just relax and take a deep breath. It will all be resolved with discussion (as it appears to be drawing to a close). :)Synergy 20:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's been resolved now, and I didn't take any more action after Nix's warning, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about (the fact that I was discussing the matter with Nix on my talk page - is that considered disruptive now?) But it is slightly worrying that admins are willing to play ball with (including participating in and supporting, in at least one case - not Nix obviously) the kind of nomination which is an automatic speedy keep and which the MfD page itself describes as disruptive.--Kotniski (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You've got the wrong idea, just like you gained the wrong opinion of Nix's stance. Take the time to reflect on the incidents and you'll see that no one is complaining, rather, I am trying to make you understand its not about the MfD, its about the actions that transpired. I hope you'll understand one day. :) Happy editing from Synergy 21:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will too. Goodnight.--Kotniski (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO, these statements by nixeagle amount to abuse. There are serious issues coming out about the behaviour of some admins whose actions are in breach of key tenets of the admin policy and are threatening the reputation of the admin system. Tony (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to justify your edit

Would you like to justify this edit to me please.

As many users are claiming MOSNUM as justification for the controversial practice of removing date links with bots. It seems only correct to note that it is noted that this practice has no consensus and is not formally endorsed by MOSNUM.

So would you like to explain you reasons for removing my edit? G-Man ^? 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just your opinion. If everyone could just go around writing whatever they liked on policy and guideline pages, they wouldn't be policy and guideline pages. Make one bold edit, sure, but if it gets reverted, take it up on the talk page and try to get consensus for it (which is what we did with the current wording). --Kotniski (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Aha, and MOSNUM doesn't serve to endorse or prohibit bot actions. There are separate policies and forums about bots - you'd be better taking the issue up there.--Kotniski (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to direct me to the appropriate page to raise this issue. G-Man ^? 20:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe WP:Bot policy would be a good place to start (there are plenty of other links from there.--Kotniski (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Marshal

Hi Kotniski!

My name is Zivan Stevanovic, it's surely known to you from recent changes I'we made to etimology and explanation of word Marshal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal , which you removed several time as incorrect.

How you find your claim correct?

Becouse eminent resources such as Britanicca, merriam-webster, Online Etymology Dictionary have exact same explanation?

-Online Etymology Dictionary:

-1218, from O.Fr. mareschal, originally "stable officer, horse tender, groom" (Frankish L. mariscaluis) from Frank. *marhskalk, lit. "horse-servant" (cf. O.H.G. marahscalc "groom"), from P.Gmc. *markhaz "horse" (see mare (1)) + *skalkaz "servant" (cf. Du. schalk "rogue, wag," Goth. skalks "servant"). Cognate with O.E. horsþegn. For development history, cf. constable. The verb "to arrange for fighting" is from 1587.

-Merriam-Webster:

-Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French mareschal, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German marahscalc marshal, from marah horse + scalc servant

-Britannica:

- The rank evolved from the title of marescalci (masters of the horse) of the early Frankish kings. The importance of cavalry in medieval warfare led to the marshalship being associated with a command position; this rank came to include the duties of keeping order at court and in camp and of deciding questions of chivalry.

With due respect I read it and they don't make sense to me!

Doesn't that word have root way behind 11th cetury?

Why is world Martial unincluded, becouse is homophonic with Marshal?

I just want you to think of my correction with common sense.

Is it suitable meaning for highest military rank, which is appointed only in war - "stable servant"?

Or is it martial which mean, as I sead Warlike,which etymology is from Latin martialis of Mars (Roman god of war)?

Thanks in advance for reading this and taking it seriously!

Zivan Stevanovic (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the eminent sources are all in agreement, I think we have to go with them. The meanings of words drift over the centuries, and that's what's happened here. The word "martial" does indeed have the etymology you suggest, but the fact that the two are homophones is just a coincidence. Of course, if you can find reliable sources that support your theory, then it can be included in the article, but Wikipedia isn't the place for original speculation. (See WP:NOR.)

I hope you will continue contributing to Wikipedia. Cheers, Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)‎

Greetings Kotniksi, thank you for being tidy and cleaning up the discussion page. When moving a thread to a different page, it would be most useful if you could leave a note in either the page itself, the edit summary (or both) stating where the thread had been moved to. I'm not sure about the other thread that was in-progress ten hours ago... perhaps I can copy and paste the last dozen points from there and let it carry on. Once again, thank you for helping keep the page size down. —Sladen (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For wishes and best wishes to you as well. --Molobo (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hello Kotniski! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

{{dr}}

As the primary creator of the new yearbox etc. series of templates, could you please list them and request full protection. (If you prefer not to use WP:RFPP, due to the potential for vandalism, I'll understand, but please let me know, preferably by E-mail. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Some discussion has recently re-continued here. Since you were once part of it, I'd like to hear your thoughts on my newest proposal. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. You have watchlisted it haven't you? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

French communes

Hi. I was wondering if you were still interested in running you rbot to add the remaining French commune infoboxes as posted on MJCdetroits page? The Bald One ^{White cat} 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, my bot's a bit busy with its Polish villages at the moment, but once it's finished its current province (in 2-3 weeks) it might be able to help.--Kotniski (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hitler (disambiguation)

We can still use the redirect. Maybe a dull comment should suffice? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever stays stable. For me, the style of wording we arrived at for Barack (disambiguation) (i.e. just start with the full name and link to it) is simplest and clearest, but the version you reverted to is OK too.--Kotniski (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. I'll see if I can come up with a hidden message tonight. Can you come up with something I should say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I need a response from you here. And if you prefer, I'll hold off on the hidden comment thingy. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging MOSpages

Hi K. I have retired from active service at the MOSpages, for now anyway. But I am delighted to see that you are involved in rational merging of disparate portions. It's a big task. Well done! Meanwhile, there doesn't seem to much useful action at WT:MOS itself. Recent changes to the guidelines for possessives are uninspired and puerile. Someone will pick it up, I trust. And the {{xt}} markup is only partially implemented. I think that initiative was poorly managed, myself. Can't be helped though, in a direct democracy.

Best wishes, and keep up the very worthwhile work!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MOSLINK merge

First, thanks for taking those pages and merging them down in to one simpler page. Second, I'm sorry for the trouble that seems to have resulted from my changes with the one sentence and two words. I really didn't expect Tony to react as he has. Hopefully this can be resolved without the merge being reversed over these (to me) trivial changes. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I realise properly merging guidelines is not a simple job to ensure the message isn't lost or perverted. No offense to you or the time you have spent, but the merger and changes subsequently made by Locke have caused me enormous concern. I have partially reverted your merger for now, pending an acceptable position from Locke. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Have you given further thought to standing up for adminship? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh... well I think you're the first person to mention it to me. Maybe sometime in the future, but I don't feel a need at present.--Kotniski (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

When you do, just give us a shout! I'd support ya. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 16:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Count me in! You're a very understanding editor, I think you'll make a fine sysop Kotniski ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal

I liked you proposal; it's a shame it won't be implemented--DFS454 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky

Tchaikovsky's father was Ukrainian, so there is some logic in listing the composer. The only solution is to define, who should be included in the article.Xx236 (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Kanjivellam

At a recent AfD discusion, you argued in favor of keeping a Kanjivellam -- the Malayam word for gruel made with water and rice -- a separate article from Gruel. Articles must demonstrate notability (which I think this one has not) and be based on reliable sources. So far, the only "reliable sources" that have been found are a history of a religious community, which mentions it once in passing, and a press release from an Indian charity which mentions it as an example of a food they feed to sick children.

If you have further reliable sources, or other information about how this article can be developed without simply redirecting it to Gruel, please leave a message at Talk:Kanjivellam. Thanks for your help, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sobibor death camp

Are you proficient in Spanish ? How do you know those who shot Feldhandler were "anti-Semitic" ? Is there a description of their state of mind anywhere in the sources cited ? Maybe they did not allow UB and NKVD collaborants ? If you read and write Polish, read Polish version of Feldhandler article, put some effort into bringing English version closer to reality.

Poles tend to be anti-British lately, you know why, all these drunk, half-naked rednecks. Am I ? :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.193.129.125 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

At least some of the sources describe the assassins as antisemitic; if you have sources that say otherwise, then let's hear them so we can include both theories in the articles. Don't see it as some kind of national affront though; saying "by antisemitic Poles" doesn't imply that Poles are generally antisemitic, only that these particular ones were.--Kotniski (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Horse breeds

Hi. Would you be able to help improve navigation among horse breed articles? See Template talk:Equine. --Una Smith (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How long...

...till Kotbot is done? Out of curiosity :) PS. DK4 (talk · contribs) seems to have started doing something similar to Kotbot, judging by new articles reports (creates long series of stubs of Polish villages). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sobibor & Leon Feldhendler

Hi, Kotniski. Thanks for your kind words -- although the issue turns out to be more complicated than that. Would you care to participate in the current discussion of sources at Talk:Leon Feldhendler. Once a consensus has been reached, I (or any willing party) can make the appropriate changes to Sobibor as well. Cheers! --Rrburke^(talk) 19:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette in question

You've been mentioned on Wikiquette alerts for edit warring to hide dispute [4]. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy/guideline/information page/essay classification

Per this discussion, what do you think of my idea to limit policies to WP:3RR and its exemptions? I've been thinking that maybe a new classification should be created for NPOV, V, and OR. In practice they are not exactly policies. I also think that WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:CIVIL should be demoted to behavioral guidelines, simply because what constitutes a violation is often unclear. Perhaps we could go through them and figure out what is truly non-negotiable and make that into a single policy. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see your logic, but I don't think you'll get people to agree to anything that looks like "downgrading" such core policies as NPOV, V and OR. Personally I would still prefer to abolish all distinctions, and simply provide a uniform set of pages that document properly and readably what kinds of content and behaviour are expected on Wikipedia. I don't actually think anything is non-negotiable, even 3RR (offenders are not always blocked automatically). --Kotniski (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought of another practical distinction which could be made. Violation of policies (usually repeated violations) could directly result in a block, whereas persistent violation of guidelines could result in at most a ban if an admin deemed it warranted (the subsequent breach of which could lead to a block.) In my idea, that could work, but that's not the way it is now. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

Your improvements to the guideline are great. Sorry to have been such a stubborn mule about the lists, but ultimately I think having two lists is unnecessarily confusing to the users of this page, even if I appreciate the logic of why you proposed the split in the first place. In retrospect, though, you were right about not organizing it by continent. But I'm actually posting here to get a handle on your edit summary that read "in these countries tags are used even if *disambiguation* is not required". I don't disagree with your subsequent edit to that sentence (I was really just trying to get rid of the awkward sentence structure that predated your recent spate of edits), but I'm puzzled about the distinction you are making between tags and disambiguation. What tags? I could just be missing the obvious here, but I'm not following your logic so I thoughT I would ask (mostly out of curiosity). Regards. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe you're right about the two lists. What I have in mind about tags and disambiguation is that U.S. towns (for example) are obliged by convention to take the ", State" tag just by virtue of their being U.S. towns, regardless of whether any disambiguation is needed. So if some town in Texas is the only thing in the world called Frugsville, we still name the article Frugsville, Texas - the tag is required (by our conventions), but "disambiguation" here is not. I think the wording of that section still needs tightenining up, but I'd like to get the matter of rivers and lakes sorted out so we can deal with all the cases.--Kotniski (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hyphens

Thank-you very-much! I would-never-have been able-to manage-that code... Bencherlite^Talk 13:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

poland location creations

		The Polish barnstar
		For craeting so many thousands of articles on polish villages. 02blythed (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Well done on your work on poland. You are doing brillaint work that would never be created otherwise. I just came across you while seeing the poland articles you have created. You therefore deserve this barnstar.

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

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

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Konik and tarpan

Hi. I see you have an interest in Konik. A whole bunch of articles related to that one have been getting a lot of work lately, including Tarpan aka Wild horse. Take a look? --Una Smith (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hijinks WRT the MOSLINK merger

Hi Kotniski: Can you deal with this? Tony (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Kotniski, you seem confused. I'm not the only one undoing this portion of the merge, Kendrick7 initiated it. Now again, I ask you to revert yourself and join the discussion on the talk page (which you blanked, removing Kendrick7's comment). —Locke Cole • t • c 08:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, two people, but it still isn't enough to overrule what was agreed in wider discussion. I have already joined in the discussion, but let's reach agreement before making any more changes to what is undoubtedly the status quo.--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've undone two improper reversions made by Kendrick7, for my explanation see here. Please let me know if there are any other pages requiring attention.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Typos ?

Hi Kotniski, I fixed what are think were typos in your comment, I am not a native speaker so please check: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style_(links)&diff=271547636&oldid=271546798 Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good, I was writing too quickly... Thanks:)--Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Catdesc

Hi, I really like your template {{Catdesc}}. But it is a very complicated template for a novice to use. If you have time, could you please write a documentation page for it? Thanks. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 03:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a project that kind of got put on the backburner. I've started thinking about categories again recently (see WT:Categorization and WT:Categorization and subcategories), so maybe I'll get back to work on catdesc (or persuade others to add their suggestions). Glad you like it!--Kotniski (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)