User talk:Orionus

Welcome!

Hello, Orionus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish medieval monarchs naming

Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave , Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit counts

Hi Orionus, and thank you for your participation in the Polish monarch polls. In terms of getting your votes to be properly counted, another thing that you can do is to add some more information to your userpage. Or, since you mentioned that you participate in other wikis, at least edit your userpage here on the English wiki, to provide a link to your user page at your "home" wiki, and that will probably help increase your status here. :) I would also recommend adding information to show what your native language is, and which other languages that you are able to speak. Hope that helps! --Elonka 05:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jogaila

Hi there. Despite a whopping victory for the name Jogaila on the previous vote, the Polish users have got upset and called yet another vote. They want to get it moved back to the old unpopular name Władysław II Jagiełło. If you are interested in stopping this, you'll need to cast your vote again. Sorry for all this tediousness. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say that I agree with your sentiment. While I think Jogaila is the best and most neutral name, the reality of the wikipedia world is that a strong minority consisting mainly of Polish users opposes it, and will seek to reverse it. The only way to get a stable page is to find a name that is not totally unacceptable to either side. Perhaps in a week or so - after the current poll at least - new names can be suggested and tested out with both sides. The usual disadvantage is long-windedness. But hopefully desire to restore mutual understanding and a stable page can overcome this. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

Dear Orionus, if you continue your wide-scale campaign at lithuanizing Russian history, you may be blocked for disruption, as User:AndriyK once was. As a sidenote, when adapting the EB1911 article about the guy for this project, I chose to place it at Algirdas, rather than Olgierd, which was its legitimate Britannica name. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish spellings shouldn't be mentioned when talking about this guy at all. The article about him says: "A neat division of their dominions is illustrated by the fact, that Algirdas appears allmost only in East Slavic sources, whereas the Western chronicles are aware of Kęstutis only". Indeed, 14th-century Polish sources were hardly aware that Algirdas existed. They learned about him from Russian/Ruthenian chronicles, where he is named as Olgerd/Olgierd. If you look closely, you will see that his whole family was Russian/Ruthenian. He was as much Lithuanian as Russian/Ruthenian. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, family of Algirdas was Russian? I thougt Gediminas, his father was Lithuanian... If you have nothing against, lets move this discussion to Algirdas discussion page [1]. Orionus 11:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mykolas Biržiška

No need to remove "bajoras" (szlachzycz) form Biržiška's family. They were noble, and it is a proof for Poles, that Lithuanians were not only peasants, as some people try to portray things.--Lokyz 12:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But szlachczic="Szlachta" by definition is "the noble class in Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania". Biržiška was born in Viekšniai in 1882 - thus I think this definition is not applicable to Mykolas Biržiška? May be he was noble, but not szlachczic? Orionus 13:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was descendant from noble GDL family, gained COA at Horodle union. If Poles use szlachta, why shouldn't Lithuanians? And a noble without an origin - sounds suspicious:)

Well, again, just a thought.--Lokyz 13:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, you are historian. If you will return "szlachczic", I will not revert it back:). But as for me, I want to leave it in the present state... Orionus 14:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued fractions

Hi, Orionus.

Today you added a Category:Mathematical series tag to this article. I removed the tag, because a continued fraction is not a sum, or series. A continued fraction can be converted into a sum, or series, but that doesn't mean that it is a sum.

I'm curious, though, why you made this categorization. Can you please explain? Thanks! ;^> DavidCBryant 13:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not mathematician, David, thus I can be mistaken, calling continuos fractions as series. I thought about "product series" or geometric progression of the type

\prod _{i=1}^{\infty }a_{i}

as an analogy of continuous divisions ("series") in the continuos fraction. It seems to me that must be some more general category, including infinite "series" of sumation, multiplication and divisions? Orionus 14:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I understand. I guess you're from Lithuania? Maybe Linas can explain it better than I can. Anyway, the English word "series" has a special meaning to mathematicians. It always means "addition and subtraction". So a + b - c is a series, but a × b × c is not a series.

The suggestion that any process continued ad infinitum ought to be grouped with all other such processes is a good suggestion. I'm not sure that such a category exists on Wikipedia right now, though. I think Category:Mathematical series and Category:Continued fractions are entirely disjoint. I can't even find a category for infinite continued products (like the one you wrote above) in the List of mathematics categories ... infinite products are pretty common in mathematics, but most mathematicians (like me!) tend to think like this: Logarithm of product = sum of logarithms(terms), so a product works just like a sum. That explanation doesn't work all the time, of course, but it works often enough to be a commonplace notion.

I'll study that list more closely, and see if I can think of a solution that will make us both happy. Have a great day! DavidCBryant 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theories

You nominated this category for deletion but haven't created a deletion discussion. I suggest you revert, and nominate again, then make sure you carefully follow all three steps listed on WP:CFD, cheers. ornis (t) 11:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the remark. Done. Orionus 11:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright, it is a bit broad isn't it. ornis (t) 12:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azimuth in astronomy

I reverted an edit you made in the Horizontal coordinate system article (I wasn't logged in under my account). You said that azimuth starts in the south for astronomy. That is false. It starts in the north and counts eastward. Jason Quinn 22:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I understand this convention is country dependant. If you look in Horizontal coordinate system at Polish, Ukrainian interwiki or Russian in ru:Системы небесных координат, you will find azimuth measuring from south point in astronomy and from north point in geodesy and geography. At first I was also surprised, but now I allways tell to my students, that they must carefully examine, what convention is used for the value of azimuth. Orionus 09:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Orionus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 97 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Vytautas Straižys - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

Hi. The criteria for lists of person is set forth here: WP:LISTPEOPLE. There must be an article on the subject, or a ref. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should be more careful before removing entries, as for example Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas, famous Lithuanian writer. It was refered as Vaižgantas only. Lithuanian editors can more carefully do this work. I think you must stop your removals. At least place the list in the discussion page before removing them from the article. Orionus (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to mention what I am doing in enforcing this rule on the talk page. But the entries are in clear conflict with the rule -- editors are free to look at the history to see what was removed. The care that is required is that of the editors who add these entries in violation of the very clear rule; not the other way around. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before removing any entry, please discuss them on the article talk page. May be some of them indeed are not worthy to be in the list. But you of course understand that some names can be very important for Lithuanians. Orionus (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am supportive of a good list here, with all notable Lithuanians reflected. But the wikipedia guideline is clear. There are many, many entries that have been added to the list that are not allowed to be on the list. You can easily see what many of them are -- they lack any wikipedia article, and they lack any ref whatsoever (let alone a ref that reflects the notability of the person). Feel free to copy and paste those entries into your page or into the article page. They should never have been added in the first place. Doing so was a clear violation of wp's rules. You, by suggesting that removing editors have to "discuss" their removals first, misunderstand who has the responsibility here. There is nothing to discuss. The entries are not appropriate. If you wish to "save" them, or re-add them, please do so in accordance with wp policy. I urge you to do so for those who qualify. But the responsibility is on the adding editor to make sure his deletion is appropriate. If it fails to meet the guideline, it should be deleted -- by you, me, or another editor. I have discussed this as well on the article talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to List of Lithuanians. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that our discussion should be on the article talk page. The problem is, that we both have our own understandings about the contructivity in the wikipedia. To destroy is always the easier way than to correct uncertain entry. Orionus (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My leanings are in the direction of constructive inclusion. Verifiability is a core wikipedia principle, however. This is not a playground for people to add unverified names -- with the onus on other editors to determine whether the people are real, are notable, and belong on the list. The onus is on the person adding the name of a person to the list to provide the sourcing that reflects the necessary verifiability.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Doc talk 02:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ukmergė may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'''Ukmergė''' ({{pronunciation|Ukmerge.ogg}}, is a city in [[Vilnius County]], [[Lithuania]], located {{convert|78|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Balmer jump, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Absorption and Intensity. 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) 09:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Pabaiskas monument.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pabaiskas monument.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Deadstar (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Orionus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Orionus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]