User Talk: Иованъ

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | In appreciation for the creation of almost 350 pages and editing of many diverse topics which is impossible to narrow down, plans to create and edit even more, and especially those related to the Glagolitic script ↗.
|} Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you so much! And thank you for all your help on Glagolitic script! Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 14:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
::For the next month, I have in plan to create Croatian glagolitism ↗ (about everything from the history, script, books, priests, scholars, research etc. in Croatia) based on modern recent academic literature, so I am looking forward to linking to the articles you created & edited and seeing your contribution as well once it is published, or even we could work together on my sandbox before publishing :) --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Very glad you contacted me, then! Pleasantly shocked someone else is contributing to Glagolitic bibliography here. My co-author and I happen to have about a thousand pages' worth of material on different aspects of Glagolitic, in diverse stages of completion. In fact, we're working on Glagolitic typefaces ↗ right now. Included is a list of all Glagolitic fonts, among other things.
:::Nice work at User:Miki Filigranski/sandbox. As there are several thousand (10,000?) works on Glagolitic, we found it was helpful to categorise them (feel free to contribute to User:Иованъ/Glagolitic bibliography). Our still very incomplete offline bibliography could extend this online version by about a thousand entries, but I'll have to break it up into manageable standalone userpages just to keep it within Wikipedia's technical limitations as it grows.
:::Just so you know, the only "List of Glagolitic X" article that is up-to-date is List of Glagolitic inscriptions (16th century) ↗. For manuscripts, we're at about 3700 in WML format, with about 1000 more offline, though we first need to publish an article we can cite for the new additions, mostly from Zadar. Our inscription lists have been practically complete for over a year now, but I'm having difficulty converting it to the new table format. Not nearly as much difficulty as with the updated version of List of Glagolitic printed works ↗, which we are splitting into List of Glagolitic printed works (1481–1599) ↗, List of Glagolitic printed works (1600–1699) ↗, List of Glagolitic printed works (1700–1799) ↗, List of Glagolitic printed works (1800–1899) ↗, List of Glagolitic printed works (1900–1950) ↗, List of Glagolitic printed works (1950–2000) ↗ and List of Glagolitic printed works (2000–present) ↗. So far about 1500 titles.
:::Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 16:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Poll

You reverted an edit that I don't think should have been reverted. I appreciate the heads up.

That being said, aggregates usually do not contain "somewhat," nor is it something we use in comprehensive polling pages. I can't think of a single election page, for example, where "I might vote for one" is listed as an option even though it's a common question in actual polling. Not to mention the majority of polls on that page don't have that option. While quality of polling is an entirely moot discussion for that page, which may as well be deleted due to lack of upkeep and sheer variety in recency and quality of polling, should we not use aggregates instead of a singular snapshot in time? Even right now I can find a quality poll that puts the guy's total approval over 50% and another that puts it at barely 40. BobSmithME (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

:You're right about aggregates being more accurate, and if it was Opinion polling on the second Trump presidency#Aggregate polls ↗ that is what we would use. Unfortunately, most countries' heads of the executive only have approval polls once every 1{{endash}}2 years.{{efn|Crucially, far fewer countries have aggregate polls like this. Entire continents would be absent.}} I'd rather not sacrifice 4 columns for the sake of 2, so instead I went with "whatever is latest" (that can fill all 6 columns). If you'd like to improve the article, it sure could use someone with a Gallup World Poll subscription (https://www.gallup.com/analytics/318923/world-poll-public-datasets.aspx). That data would allow the adding of many countries not currently on the list. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 10:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Notes

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your contributions to John Mearsheimer's articles. ApoieRacional (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
|}
:Thank you! Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 17:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your unbiased contributions to Wikipedia. ApoieRacional (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
|}

A Barnstar for you!

{| style="border: 2px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;" | alt|Citation Barnstar Hires.png|Barnstar quill.png}}|100px|The Citation Barnstar ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em; color: black" | '''The Citation Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray; color: black" | For your exceptional work building and maintaining the Arctic Frost bibliography ↗. Your systematic source collection made comprehensive coverage possible, and your defense of the workpage as a legitimate research space showed both policy knowledge and editorial backbone. You correctly noted that even non-RS sources help locate RS sources and primary documents. The article wouldn't exist in its current form without your contributions. Bladerunner24 (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you! Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 02:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of trees of the United States ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

Hello, Иованъ. This message concerns the Articles for Creation ↗ submission or draft ↗ page you started, "List of trees of the United States ↗".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy ↗, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:List of trees of the United States|edit the submission}}, and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can '''request its undeletion''' ↗. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia!  DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Иованъ. Thank you for your work on List of lunar pits ↗. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Accepting that there is more than one database of pits, it seems reasonable to have a list (WP:NLIST ↗). For my liking there are too many redlinks; it's unlikely that few will ever be independently notable, and hence will remain table list elements. I note that exception for some special cases like Mare Tranquillitatis pit ↗.}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>Klbrain<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. <small>(Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)</small>

Klbrain (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear

Goodness gracious, @Иованъ, this is something really special. You compiled an incredible collection in this page. Maybe only very small drawback are those colors in graphics; some are hard to distinguish. Actually, you did incredible work on all of your Paleography and Linguistics creations and improvements. Well, I don't know, I had to say something :-) and thank you. I really appreciate it; it's a gargantuan amount of work but whoever finds it will know to appreciate it. See you around. <span style="color:maroon;text-shadow:#7d7978 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;font-size:0.7em;">'''౪ Santa ౪'''</span><span style="color:navy;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;font-size:0.5em"><sup>'''''99°'''''</sup></span> 05:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

:Why, thank you very much! The colors are temporary. I'll probably have AI rewrite them to conform to MOS:COLOR ↗ while simultaneously conveying relevant ideological spectra (in a 4D color space ↗):
:* The reciprocity-only - confederalism - weak federalism - strong federalism - unitarism axis
:* The Polonophile – Russophile axis
:* The Orthodox - ecumenist - Catholic axis
:* The religious - secular axis
:But I have an offline collection of csv files for social network analysis ↗ purposes with much more detail. That page is mainly to collect bibliographic information, so it is limited to what exists in secondary sources, with the occasional quotation. Very glad you enjoyed it! Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 06:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Template:Reflib and your bibliography

Hi, Иованъ. I noticed that you have a collection of citations in your Pan-Slavism bibliography ↗, and I wondered if you use them in different articles in this topic area. If so, I wanted to draw your attention to Template:Reflib ↗, which serves a similar purpose across multiple topic areas. In my opinion, your bibliography
of citations corresponds closely to the concept of an "article domain ↗", and would make a great addition as a new domain. It would be trivial to create a new article domain for pan-Slavism by importing your bibliography. If the idea appeals to you, feel free to create one ↗, or let me know, and I would be happy to create it for you. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

:Wow! Thank you! I'll have to read through this. But it could solve some long-term problems I've been having. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 20:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Martin Krpan (climb) ↗

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, Иованъ. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Martin Krpan (climb) ↗, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted ↗, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it ↗ again or request ↗ that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted ↗ so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

You may be eligible to vote in the U4C election

<section begin="announcement-content" />
I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ↗. You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta ↗, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) ↗ (talk ↗)<section end="announcement-content" />

Keegan (WMF) ↗ (talk ↗) 16:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Third opinion request

25px|alt=icon ↗ Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion ↗. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes ↗. These guidelines are in place to ensure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that they can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be '''concise''' and '''neutral''', and you should '''sign with the timestamp only'''. A concise and neutral description means that only the ''subject matter'' of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources ↗, do not write ''"They think this source is unreliable"'', but rather write ''"Disagreement about the reliability of a source"''. To sign ↗ with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (<nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if you feel it's necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution ↗ process may be able to help you.
This request was neither neutral nor unsigned. Further, there was not a coplete discussion on the article's talk page first. meamemg (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

:Note to future readers: At the time, there was a potential third participant (against the policy of Wikipedia:Third opinion ↗), who ended up participating after all. Ⰻ̆ⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳ҃ⰾ) 23:20, 29 June 2026 (UTC)