User talk:Vorziblix

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Vorziblix,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Symbols of the Rurikids, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lithuanian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vladimir III Igorevich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tsarigrad Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sea of Magellan listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sea of Magellan. Since you had some involvement with the Sea of Magellan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 19:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Krajina, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fringe and Slovene. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ze (Cyrillic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ustav. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Looby loo
Vorziblix, could I please ask you to add a mention and a source for this phrase to the Hokey Cokey article? As the situation stands it is rather pointless to have a disambiguation page with a link to an article which does not mention the term at all. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Looby Loo
Hi you have modified the above article saying "There are indeed plenty of sources that mention the Looby Loo as a variant of the Hokey Pokey; cf. Metheny 1968, Movement and Meaning, or run a simple Google Books search for both of them". As per WP:BURDEN the onus of unsourced information is on the person adding the information and it is not acceptable to say find the proof yourself. I will be reverting back to the redirect and please do not recreate the DAB page unless you modify the page Hokey Cokey with a source showing that Looby Loo is indeed an alternative name. This is not mentioned in the article so as per WP:DABRELATED this should not be an entry in the DAB page. Domdeparis (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Source on Adelphopoiesis
Hello! While working through the NPOV tag backlog, I encountered a comment of yours citing a Serbian poem and expressing concerns about that article. Unfortunately as I don't read Serbian it wasn't clear to me what you were saying. Could you possibly elaborate and/or provide a reference to where you got that poem from/further explanation of its significance, to facilitate improving the article? Regards, -- LWG talk 00:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, and sure! The poem is a folk poem, part of an epic cycle passed down via oral tradition and ultimately published by Vuk Karadžić in Narodne srpske pjesme, 1824. This specific poem is titled Musić Stefan, and concerns the Musić noble family. Translated, the part I commented on runs roughly thus:


 * The discrepancy with the article is that the article says that adelphopoiesis was only done between members of the same sex, whereas in this old poem a woman (Stefan’s wife) calls a man (Vaistina the servant) her adelphos! Now, this is a primary source, and a literary one at that, so directly citing it is out of the question, but there must surely be scholarly sources discussing this: did the South Slavic tradition differ from the Byzantine one, or was adelphopoiesis possible between men and women in general? Are there non-disputed scholarly sources saying that it was only done between people of the same sex? Unfortunately, I am not an expert in Orthodox Church history, and I wouldn’t know where to begin looking for the answer. I posted on the talk page in the idle hope that someone more knowledgeable than me could help resolve the discrepancy. Vorziblix (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! I have copied this info over to the article talk page. -- LWG talk 21:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Fifa
Thanks for changing it, some idiot decided to write stupid names down Jithinsaju (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from the Portals WikiProject...
You are invited to join the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system...

The Portals WikiProject was rebooted on April 17th, and is going strong. Fifty-nine editors have joined so far, with more joining daily.

We're having a blast, and excitement is high...

Our goal is to update, upgrade, and maintain portals.

In addition to working directly on portals, we are developing tools to make portals more dynamic (self-updating), and to make building and maintaining portals easier. We've finished two tools so far, with more to come. They are Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Discussions are underway about how to further upgrade portals, and what the portals of the future will be.

There are plenty of tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too).

With more to come.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    &mdash; The Transhumanist   23:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   18:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please ping me. Thank you. -TT

Old East Slavic
Hello. When looking at the article I found the IMHO odd claim that Ukrainian split off first from OES, with Russian later splitting from Belarusian in the 18th century, which is the direct opposite to what all sources I have seen say (and also the direct opposite to what other articles here say), namely that when OES split the Eastern branch became the Russian language and the western branch became the Ruthenian language, which in turn, a few centuries later, split into Ukrainian, Rusyn and Belarusian. Did you by mistake swap places between Ukrainian and Russian in the text you added? - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant part of the source is page 185, where Lunt summarizes the chronological differentiation of Slavic dialects in a table. As far as East Slavic goes, for the year 1200 he gives ‘Rusian’ (i.e. OES), for 1500 ‘R/BR ~ Ukr’, and for 1700 ‘R ~ BR ~ Ukr’, where ‘~’ indicates differentiation. I don’t think I interpreted this wrongly, but I agree that it doesn’t seem in line with most available sources. Maybe Lunt made an error in the original text? Vorziblix (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to that book, but the OES language was split when the by then already fragmented realm of Kievan Rus' collapsed after the Mongolian invasion in the 13th century, and split into a northeastern part that became the Grand Duchy of Moscow (the direct ancestor of Russia, with the language there becoming Russian), and a southwestern part that became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and later came under Polish influence in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (a part that geographically covered what later became Belarus and most of today's Ukraine, with the laguage there first becoming the Ruthenian language, and later splitting into the Belarusian, Rusyn and Ukrainian languages), so Ukrainian couldn't possibly have split off first. Which is further supported by the fact that the Belarusian and Ukrainian languages, even after they had become separate languages, were commonly known as "Ruthenian" well into the 20th century... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand it the situation was a bit more complicated than that; on the level of colloquial speech Old East Slavic didn’t directly split apart into Russian and Ruthenian but existed as a dialect continuum stretching from the southwest to the northeast. Russian and Ruthenian then coalesced as literary/written languages formed on the basis of some of these dialects but spanning an area wider than any individual spoken dialect; cf. the map at File:Rus-1389-lg.png for an illustration. While the situation was certainly as you described as far as the written languages go, I think that Lunt may be talking about particular dialectal isoglosses in colloquial spoken language as characteristic of ‘Ukrainian’, ‘Belarusian’, etc. rather than looking at the developments of the literary languages. However, this is just a guess on my part, and it could equally well just be an error in the cited text. I’m not familiar enough with the historical phonology of East Slavic dialects to be able to judge. Vorziblix (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Merenre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metathesis ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Merenre check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Merenre?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"Rusian" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rusian. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 9 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Illyrian (South Slavic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Slavic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Cyrillic issues
Hello! I found your name by looking through edits made by user:TheBiggestMicrosoftFan100. You reverted edits to Scientific transliteration of Cyrillic with a negative comment suggesting these were completely unreliable. I was looking at Ukrainian Ye which for a short time was moved to "Reversed E (Cyrillic)", and inscrutable claimed alternative name, which I am going to remove. (How can a "rounded forward E" be a "reversed square E"???) I wonder if you could confirm this, and possible suggest you might look through this user's other edits, most of which seem to be related to cyrillic, and many already reverted.

Can I ask another question about Cyrillic? (I'm basically a Russian learner, and utterly not an expert) For example, in Russian cursive, it is claimed that "Russian Italics" are based on cursive. Is there really such a thing as "Russian italic", given that "italic" explicitly refers to the Latin alphabet? In practice, I suppose that html &lt;i> tags get interpreted as meaning "cursive", but in practice in WP they produce sloped (non-cursive) Cyrillic. I have tried to argue that this is meaningless, because I can't imagine that sloped-non-cursive is ever used, but I don't really know. Grateful for any feedback. Imaginatorium (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)