coicio revert reason
I'd like to know the reason for the latest revert. In the future, perhaps you would consider first leaving a comment on my talk page if you need clarification on some of my edits, or after reverting to explain the reason.
Your edit left the entry with two contradictory pronunciations, and yours were the incorrect ones. In the future, you should discuss problems you have with the templates so that they can be fixed.
The pronunciations were not contradictory - it's impossible to determine which one is correct. -N- before fricatives is often omitted in Latin orthography, and there's no consensus on what exactly this testifies to. This webiste assumes this means a nasalised vowel, but the -N- could just as well have been pronounced fully or not at all - I left the other pronunciation as a possible spelling pronunciation. This is not a seprate word from conicio, but an alternative spelling of the same word - at the very least they have to share one identical pronunciation in addition to the spelling one. This is not a problem of the template because the a template doesn't know when an -N- is omitted and when it isn't. The -NI- spelling might be problematic for the template to nasalise because of the J/I issue - I will probably ask about that. In either case there's no reason I cannot add an explicit IPA pronunciation in the meantime. I don't see your reversals as justified.