This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Brodnici was a Slavo-Romanian, Slavic or Turanian vassal state of Galicia.
Where did you read that they were Turanian? -- Anittas 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
in the second reference (victor spinei) and in a high school romanian history book of the early 90s -- Anonimu 10:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The Brodnici was a Slavo-Romanian, Slavic or Turanian vassal state of Galicia.
I want prove that: 1. it was a state 2. it was slavo-romanian or slavic or turanian 3. it was vassal of Galicia
The territory of Brodnici comprised of the southern part of what was to become the Romanian principality of Moldavia.
4. it was where you located it
Until then, I modified it.
Anonimu 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It is wrong that Ploskânea was initially on side of Mstislav the Bold. Nothing in Chronicle about it. -- Tigga en ( talk) 02:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
However, there are some lines: "...Ploskânea kissed the cross of slavs..." According to Boldur, Ploskânea was a Christian and allied to Cumans. Aggerr ( talk) 09:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
We are the Bodrici live n Republic of Adygeya. Our popularity is about 5000-7000. -- 85.26.241.6 ( talk) 16:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Ploscânea is discussed by many historians because he participated at Kalka. Eliminating him means to eliminate Hypathian Chronicle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.130.187 ( talk) 08:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
...."Accident" is your original opinion. See rules about OR in Wiki. Majority of sources (4 or 5 sources) about Ploscânea came from Romanian historians and the name is in latin letters and is not necessary another latin name. You may put both transliterations. Another mistification is about Galicia. Spinei never wrote about any connection between Galicia and Brodnici. So you use false allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.131.218 ( talk) 11:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brodnici. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is full of mumbo-jumbo edits typical of Iaaasi. For example, avoiding the consensus issued by Victor Spinei regarding the Turkic origin and inventing Romanian-Alanian origins or anything that contains "Romanian-" something. -- Kun Kipcsak ( talk) 17:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
As of the most recent revision ... that is, the "07:47, 13 January 2023" revision -- footnote "[6]" consists of (it 'uses') a "ref" tag that does not actually use a "{{ cite web}}" template [instance] -- nor something like that -- but it does contain a clickable link to an "archived" version of the reliable source.
That clickable link to an online version of the source is not exactly an "archive-URL" field value of a template field. Rather, it uses a "{{ webarchive}}" template instance.
However, I just noticed recently that ... if it were coded using an "archive-URL" ... then -- [as far as I can tell] -- now it would now be appropriate to include "| url-status = dead" since the "PRIMARY" clickable link [URL] does not work!
Well ... it does not work for me. I wanted to check and see whether this agrees with your findings ...
since it might just be my browser, or something. That was one of the main reasons for my decision to enter this on the "Talk:" page, instead of immediately changing the footnote (currently footnote number "[6]") in the article.
Any comments? Mike Schwartz ( talk) 15:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Brodnici was a Slavo-Romanian, Slavic or Turanian vassal state of Galicia.
Where did you read that they were Turanian? -- Anittas 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
in the second reference (victor spinei) and in a high school romanian history book of the early 90s -- Anonimu 10:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The Brodnici was a Slavo-Romanian, Slavic or Turanian vassal state of Galicia.
I want prove that: 1. it was a state 2. it was slavo-romanian or slavic or turanian 3. it was vassal of Galicia
The territory of Brodnici comprised of the southern part of what was to become the Romanian principality of Moldavia.
4. it was where you located it
Until then, I modified it.
Anonimu 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It is wrong that Ploskânea was initially on side of Mstislav the Bold. Nothing in Chronicle about it. -- Tigga en ( talk) 02:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
However, there are some lines: "...Ploskânea kissed the cross of slavs..." According to Boldur, Ploskânea was a Christian and allied to Cumans. Aggerr ( talk) 09:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
We are the Bodrici live n Republic of Adygeya. Our popularity is about 5000-7000. -- 85.26.241.6 ( talk) 16:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Ploscânea is discussed by many historians because he participated at Kalka. Eliminating him means to eliminate Hypathian Chronicle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.130.187 ( talk) 08:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
...."Accident" is your original opinion. See rules about OR in Wiki. Majority of sources (4 or 5 sources) about Ploscânea came from Romanian historians and the name is in latin letters and is not necessary another latin name. You may put both transliterations. Another mistification is about Galicia. Spinei never wrote about any connection between Galicia and Brodnici. So you use false allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.131.218 ( talk) 11:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brodnici. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is full of mumbo-jumbo edits typical of Iaaasi. For example, avoiding the consensus issued by Victor Spinei regarding the Turkic origin and inventing Romanian-Alanian origins or anything that contains "Romanian-" something. -- Kun Kipcsak ( talk) 17:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
As of the most recent revision ... that is, the "07:47, 13 January 2023" revision -- footnote "[6]" consists of (it 'uses') a "ref" tag that does not actually use a "{{ cite web}}" template [instance] -- nor something like that -- but it does contain a clickable link to an "archived" version of the reliable source.
That clickable link to an online version of the source is not exactly an "archive-URL" field value of a template field. Rather, it uses a "{{ webarchive}}" template instance.
However, I just noticed recently that ... if it were coded using an "archive-URL" ... then -- [as far as I can tell] -- now it would now be appropriate to include "| url-status = dead" since the "PRIMARY" clickable link [URL] does not work!
Well ... it does not work for me. I wanted to check and see whether this agrees with your findings ...
since it might just be my browser, or something. That was one of the main reasons for my decision to enter this on the "Talk:" page, instead of immediately changing the footnote (currently footnote number "[6]") in the article.
Any comments? Mike Schwartz ( talk) 15:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)