Archive

Hi Иованъ. Thank you for your work on Why the Soviets Can't Win Quickly in Central Europe. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed week!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jovan, I don't want to start an edit war, but I cannot accept that the Apostolus Christinopolitanus belongs in a list of glagolitic MSS. The only glagolitic characters in it are those used as reference marks to link commentary in the margin to the place in the text it refers to; as Javor says, ″В текста се срещат глаголически букви, употребявани като знаци за препратка към коментарите и указанията в полетата на ръкописа.″ Moreover, this is the case only in a relatively small part of the MS: for most of it, Cyrillic numerals are so used. By all means mention this in the text of the article, but do not classify the whole MS as glagolitic. There are no glagolitic abecedaries in the MS – I don't know where that idea came from. There is, however, a small amount of Latin script in the MS – but one wouldn't want to include it in a list of Latin manuscripts! Might I, therefore, respectfully suggest that you reverse your edit? Лудольф (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, and I appreciate your concern. I have corrected the "abecedaries" part of the satement. I agree that it would be out of place in a list of Latin manuscripts, but Glagolitic is an extremely rare script. The entire corpus is, generously, a few thousand manuscripts. Most of those are post-medieval, whereas Christinopolitanus happens to be among the earliest manuscripts with the script. Because it is only partly Glagolitic, and a rather insignificant part at that, I have not added it to Category:Glagolitic script. As a further compromise, I have also removed the link to Lists of Glagolitic manuscripts, since only a minority of article visitors would think of it as such. For reasons of script rarity, however, being one of only 40 or so Glagolitic-featuring manuscripts dated to the 900–1199 period, I have decided to retain the remaining link in the See also section. As far as the list itself is concerned, which is essentially a Lists of manuscripts with Glagolitic in scope, it is currently undergoing substantial changes off-wiki, including radical reformatting. Sorry for the trouble. Ivan (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a reasonable solution.

Лудольф (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blaževci, Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hrib. 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) 19:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Иованъ. Thank you for your work on List of caves on Žumberak. Another editor, Kingsmasher678, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

I will once again suggest finding a more reader freindly way of presenting this information.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kingsmasher678}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Иованъ. Thank you for your work on List of deepest Dinaric caves. Another editor, Kingsmasher678, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

as above

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kingsmasher678}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Иованъ. Thank you for your work on List of longest Dinaric caves. Another editor, Kingsmasher678, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

as above

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kingsmasher678}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"As above"? Neither List of longest Dinaric caves nor List of deepest Dinaric caves uses the citation system in List of caves on Žumberak. Ivan (talk) 09:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad! Sorry about that!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nice work on Outline of caves. Ivan (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Иованъ. Thank you for your work on Velika peć na Rogu. Another editor, Kingsmasher678, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

you should consider taking this one to GA

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kingsmasher678}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I might do that with Veternica if I can find the time. Ivan (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]