User talk:Camdan

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Clan of Ostoja
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner about your question, I forgot I hadn't already replied.

If you separate off the history as a separate article will that improve the length?

-


 * No prob, thanks for answering my call for help here! :)


 * Do You feel that the article is to long?


 * Its not even finished :(


 * Which part would You suggest i should move? Should I make sub articles or one sub Article to refer to? Maybe the problem is also my poor english so the article is to comprehensive?


 * I think to have some history and some stories left otherwise the article will be to boring to read? Or do You think that i should have another sub section for the stories? I was thinking to tell more stories as sub articles when writing linked article about particular families of the Clan...


 * I'd say don't worry about length yet. It's a bit long but I'd wait until it is finished before trying to determine what should be split as a separate article. If it really bothers someone then they will find a place to split it.  RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

--
 * Many thanks for Your kind and supportive words! I will try to find time to continue on the article. When finished, I will see to find some scissors... ;)


 * Hey; I've started a review of the article, if you want to take a look at the first point I've brought up. Ironholds (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of bolding like that violates the Manual of Style, and is to be discouraged.
 * You're giving far too much background information on clans; the article should just be about the clan and its impact.
 * You need to reference a lot more of the article. Ironholds (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got far too many, though. See MOS:IMAGES. Ironholds (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't use "we"; it should be written objectively.
 * Don't use words like "brave"; articles should be written in a neutral point of view with a neutral tone.
 * The section starting "In the Medieval Period, the influence of the great Polish Clans was..." is extraneous.
 * Lists in articles are normally to be discouraged. Put the one under "In Poland" in prose format, remove the "Close family of.." list.
 * Don't use exclamation marks or similar
 * Make your mind up. Clan of Ostoja or Ostoja Clan? Ironholds (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Try Template:Infobox person. Ironholds (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Marcin Szyszkowski
A tag has been placed on Marcin Szyszkowski, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on Talk:Marcin Szyszkowski. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 95j (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note
It's nice to get some positive feedback! I do understand how annoying it is when you put a lot of work into something, especially a subject like Marcin Szyszkowski where it's obviously an article of historical interest, and you obviously aren't trying to promote anything (who gets rich from 16th-century bishops?), and someone comes along and tags it for deletion, apparently without doing so much as a Google to find out if they should be deleting it or not.

On the other hand, please try to understand it from the point of view of the new page patrollers. They see a constant stream of new articles being created, and a *huge* number of them are either vandalism, outright hoaxes, or attempts to promote some product. Mostly they get it right, but they are occasionally going to make a mistake and tag something that shouldn't be tagged.

People like me then go through the ones that have been tagged for deletion, and try to spot articles that shouldn't be deleted. Mostly we get it right, but sometimes we screw up too ;)

I guess my point is that everyone involved - even the person who tagged your article - is trying to do their best to contribute to the project. On the whole the system works out in the end, as it has in this case.

Also remember, even if an administrator does delete your article, you can always ask them to restore it to your user space, so you can continue to work on it and then move it back into article space at your leisure.

Thanks again for the note and happy editing! Please let me know if I can help you with anything.

Thparkth (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

---


 * Thank You for taking time to write comments on issue! Yes, I do understand that those that tag do also lot of good work! But as You said, they could think twice before action. Its also my fault since I did not tag my article and inform that its new ongoing article to give it time so that is what i will do next time! Also, the partollers could simply check my other articles to find out the direction of my writing, all articles are connecting each other. But then, they seem not have time to make such effort.


 * I have done research since 1986 on the subjects that Im writing about and they all will be linked to each other. So I have some 30 years more of reading and writing and researching. The project I started is huge and I will need lot of support in the future.


 * Once again, I really appreciate what You are doing, there will be many to thank You in the future! If there is anything I can help with, just let me know!

Wish You all the best, /Camil

Questions about your article
I removed our talk page conversation, and also your comment on the article talk page. I made a few minor changes to the article, fixing typos and capitalization, etc. I also changed the link to Luck to Lutsk, because "luck" has many different meanings and links to a disambiguation page. I am also wondering about the link to Rom, which is also a disambiguation page. Does that link refer to Rom, Germany? 95j (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for changing! :) Rom is Rome, I just was to tired to see that. I need to improve it little bit more later on. Many thanks!

Camdan (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Casimir Zagourski
I have no objection either way to how the name is spelled in an article on the clan, but I do think that the expression "true name" is rather question-begging. To speak of "birth name" is one thing, but the name under which he founded the business that made him famous was gallicized, so it makes more sense to use that as his main name. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

T:TDYK
If you add inline citations to your non-stub newly created articles, you can nominate them at T:TDYK for main page exposure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. Also, please add categories and talk page wikiprojects to your article (see edits by others to your recent articles for details). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will add inline citations and add categories and subcategories although I need to check how to do those first. I also need to improve the articles a bit, they are new and I need some more time. Thank You for Your kind comments! Sincerely Camdan (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ignacy Ścibor Marchocki
Hello. Large portions of the article were copied and pasted from this site in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, those portions have been deleted. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The text form this side have been translated and form other author and there was no need to delete it, instead it need citation and reference to the article. I will anyway undo this change but make improvements that are necessary. Its a new article and there is more improvement to do, like ref and inline citations.

Camdan (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for fixing the problems with the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your DYK submission
Hello! Your submission of Zbigniew Ścibor Rylski at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Please see WP:Did you know for details, but basically, your submission should be something in a form such as... Did you know...
 * ...that Zbigniew Ścibor-Rylski was a general who took part in the Warsaw uprising?

Try to make it as interesting and catchy as possible. Good luck! M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  18:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank You for Your kind response, I will do necessary changes in tme but right now I have no time at all so I will write on the article to hold on! I hope that it is ok, i will review article in the end of July. Sincerely Camdan (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ścibor-Rylski
No need to thank me, hopefully my comments were helpful. I plan to help more with the article copyedits before the DYK proposal time expires (in part because it's easier for one to show a new editor what the requirements are than to talk about what they mean). Oh, and sorry for leaving one of your questions unanswered (I just didn't notice it in your earlier post): a "hook" refers, in this case, to the DYK proposal and the way it is formulated (the answer to the question "did you know?", i.e. "... that Zbigniew Ścibor Rylski etc."), to the info you want people to read as a way of growing interested in the article. It is commonly called "hook", as in "a hook to draw people into reading the article" (it sounds quite stupid when we put it like that, but it's basically how the DYK works). I hope this clarifies what I meant. Cheers, Dahn (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm done. Please have a second look, and let me know how else I can help. Also, tell me if I can help you fix the problem with some of the sources' format that I mentioned on the DYK talk. Dahn (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thank you for the kind words. There is still the matter of referencing, in the case of refs 1, 4, 6 and 8: what do they actually mean? Where can the reader find the exact links? If you have difficulties with the format (perfectly understandable ones, given that you're an inexperienced user), please help me retrieve them, so they actually count as valid references. Also: does a note by the end of a paragraph count as the reference for the entire preceding paragraph, or just the last phrase? I realize you only translated the Polish version, but, as a Polish speaker, perhaps you could check to see if this is the case, by having a glance over the sources. The reason why this is important in the case of DYK: the info in the hook is supposed to be clearly referenced, clearly attributed to one or several sources, or otherwise the hook might not be approved. You'd help me help you by checking the info from the sources, not just from the Polish version of the article. Regards, Dahn (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, much appreciated. To explain further what I meant: let's say the hook opted for is my suggestion, which includes mentions of him being a trained aviator, a participant in the Warsaw Uprising and an automobile repair branch manager or whatever; technically, all these elements would have to be each backed by at least one citation, so that the reviewer either verifies them or accepts, on good faith, that they are present in a quoted source. It's the basic need, a formal tool telling the reviewer that the info is traced back to a solid source. The entire article is well-sourced, but since you translated a text where this wasn't necessarily made clear, I thought I'd ask you to have a look over the original online sources.
 * I see some script errors in the text you added, and some links need refining. Let me have a second look over the text. Dahn (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm done. I removed the redundant refs from the lead section. Generally, it serves as a summary of the article, and it is understood that the info there is referenced below, inside the actual article. I left a ref for the one thing that was not discussed below, that is him being president of the association. It's also possible to move the info and ref to the body of article, if you think this would be better. Dahn (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and don't get me wrong on the refs: the article is very well referenced at the moment, certainly so for DYK - what it needed was confirmation that there is agreement between the text and the sources, and your checking is good enough. Sure you could add more info or more sources (and they can help the article in the long run), but you have effectively addressed all my concerns, and I thank you for that.
 * As for the infobox: it takes a little practice with wiki script, but mostly it's about copying the right templates. It then may become an issue of which infobox is best and what to write in them (which is why I for example refrain from using them at all in some articles). For a generic view of the infoboxes available for biographies, see Category:People infobox templates - the one I used is a variation of this one. To create an infobox in an article, just copy the script (in this case, the script from " "), and fill in the sections like you would, say, fill in an application. Infoboxes generally have instructions as to what sort of info to write in what section, as well as which one needs to be filled in and which one is optional. Dahn (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, thank you, and really glad to have helped. If you have any other inquires now or in the future, please don't hesitate to post them on my talk page, and I'll do my best to help. Regards, Dahn (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. Let me start by saying this: what is unusual is that I got credits for the article; you had them by default, and the article text is really entirely your merit. I did not actually have to include you for credits, it was implied by your DYK submission (as it should have been). Editors who correct or format the text, which is what I did, do not get credits as a rule, unless their contribution is judged significant in this context - mine was, and that was a pleasant surprise, but whatever I did for the article it still does not compare to your contribution, which created the text from scratch.

Concerning other projects: well, to the measure where I have time to spare between real life and my own projects, I'm willing to help with whatever I can. There is of course the matter of me not being able to speak any Polish (other than a few words that I kept comically mixing up during my one and so far only trip to that great country, which was more than a decade ago). So mine will still have to be a checking grammar, fixing format and finding context mission, should any of this prove necessary. I think the best way to approach this is if you let me know when you feel comfortable enough with the text for me to perform such a review (so we don't get our edits crossed), and I will proceed as time permits.

If the finished article is well sourced, then me performing such edits will probably, on principle at least, get it to a GA-ready level. Before that stage, what is most important is that the article looks good to you. You may also want to check it against some of the existing good articles. A personal favorite of mine is Mateiu Caragiale - which I wrote myself :). My personal pride aside, I recommend this article not just because it was reviewed as a good one by other editors, but also because, having played a part in writing it, I can answer with more certainty to any questions you may have about what a GA like it is expected to hold.

The FA thing is a bit tricky: the review process there is quite pretentious (way too pretentious if you ask me), and you may find it exhausting and even disappointing to attempt a direct FA nomination at this stage. And in any case, since the GA process is viewed as a natural step to take before FA submissions, and since a GA review is a good benchmark for potential issues raised there, you can't go wrong with a GA nomination when you feel the article is ready. Dahn (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I have to tell you that the major problems I see with the Ostoja article so far include the fact that entire paragraphs are without a single citation, and that major clumps of text are written in a truly non-encyclopedic tone, as panegyrics of sorts. An encyclopedic text should be neutral and informative in tone, and it should use descriptive terms as opposed to praise (unless, of course, that praise is quoted from and referred to sources). For more info on this, please see WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:PEACOCK, WP:ATTR and WP:WEASEL. For instance, "was a man of exceptional intellect!" or "remarkable man" don't work as statements (in fact, they pose a serious issue for the article). The "was often called 'Leonardo from Wzdow'" needs to be attributed if it is to be kept. Dahn (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Another serious problem I notice is that very many of the references/citations are either unreliable (in particular the Tripoid site) or unretrievable. For the books, you cite no page numbers; for some of the sites (Bran Castle), you provide no links. I had a brief look over the text, and I must say the problem with tone persists over several paragraphs, many of which look like original research (which wikipedia aims not to publish). Another thing is that some of the references may not actually back the text, but info that does not refer to the Ostojas (see WP:SYNTH). The way it looks now, the article needs a comprehensive do-over before we even begin considering it for GA, and I find that the B-class review it received is rather sloppy. I'm not sure I'm the man to be approached for this, and I urge you to [also] seek more assistance from experienced editors of English wikipedia who are native Poles/speakers of Polish. Dahn (talk) 07:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Zbigniew Ścibor-Rylski
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ignacy Ścibor Marchocki
No problem. Thanks for writing an article about this fascinating personality. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Heraldry WikiProject
I saw you at the Heraldry WikiProject, and there is a discussion at the WikiProject about whether or not the shape of a shield matters. If you are familiar with heraldic rules, could you weigh in for a larger discussion? The discussion is also about some of the images found on my user page here, if you would comment on whether or not they are beautiful or hideous, please do so. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  16:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do adhere to the heraldic rules, and even help blazon, design and emblazon coats of arms on several heraldry societies and forums. I have studied up for several years on the subject, and have had my work published in a Serbian heraldry journal and on a few heraldry websites.


 * There is no requirement that a coat of arms be limited to the art of the 12th century. You will find that when there are new fashions in art, heraldry mimics such fashions; during Baroque art there were Baroque shields, during Rococo art there was Rococo shields, during the period when French culture was popular you find French-styled shields and today there is even a manga-styled heraldic artist.  No matter what the style or shield shape or embellishments, you will always notice the same basic symbols and colours are used, and that is what makes the coat of arms a coat fo arms.


 * If you go through examples of, say, the English monarch, you will see the shield-shapes and the artistic styles and so on differ greatly between each rendition, but that the colours and symbols all remain the same.  [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  09:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Coats of arms often change over time, it is not uncommon at all. For example, the three lions that the English Kings used were originally one, then two fighting each other, then two stacked up one over the other then three stacked up. In your case the cross fitchee, which uses the long point beneath it, is often mistaken in poor drawings for a sword, but then again a cross fitchee is supposed to mimic a sword and was often used by holy fighters. But, that is how heraldry changes overtime. The de' Medici did the same, modifying the number of circles on their shield to suit their aesthetic eye.

As for the discussion over at the WikiProject, it is a question on the shapes of shields and how much they matter. The editor who questioned the shield shapes thought the shape mattered more than the charges on the shield. Also, I like to make complete arms, so that means adding any appropriate crowns or crests or supporters, so that readers to Wikipedia can have a full sense of what heraldry is. Also, if you would care to repeat your compliments to my work there as well, I would appreciate the support.

Do you need a new drawing for the Ostoja coat of arms for any Wikipedia article? [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  16:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Czeczot
HI. I have no particularity strong opinion regarding that article, however the passage which IP changed is seemingly referenced. If you have proper sources you could improve article by adding them. If you have additional questions feel free to ask. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Bronisław Bohatyrewicz
Category:Polish generals is a sub-category of Category:Polish Army officers and Category:Polish soldiers, so they both are redundant. Category:Polish military personnel of World War II is a sub-category of Category:Polish people of World War II. Category:Katyn massacre victims is a sub-category of Category:Polish victims of Soviet repressions and Category:Prisoners who died in Soviet detention. Category:Polish people who died in prison custody is not too correct, for he didn't die in prison (anyway, if you insist, all category:Katyn massacre victims should be its sub-category). The same for Category:Polish murder victims (which is not too correct, for it was a very specific organized murder). Category:Polish prisoners and detainees is too general (there are some more specific sub-categories). Category:Victims of Communist repressions in Poland 1939-1989 is too general as well. If you insist, category:Katyn massacre victims should be a sub-category of it. I hope I made it clear. Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 14:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Mikołaj Błociszewski
Hi. I've nominated Mikołaj Błociszewski, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC) (on behalf of User:Piotrus)

DYK for Mikołaj Błociszewski
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the aticle! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Polish-Jewish relations
Thank you for your message. Happy new year!

I know about Polish-Jewish history, but I don't know very much about contemporary relations between Jews and Poles. I'd be happy to try to help you with your questions, though. I'm very busy at the moment, so if you e-mail me I may not get back to you until next week.

Thanks, — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

JRN
JRN selects radical opinions of Jewish authors and says - if the Jew says so, it must be the truth. It's like a US author says - Gross, Gombrowicz, Wielopolski are Polish, it means they are always right when they criticize the Poles. JRN was a diplomat under the Communists, when such people were carefully selected and controlled. He is very workable and many his texts are interesting, but I don't know how he is reliable.Xx236 (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I understand the context now. Swedish people supported the Nazis delivering raw materials and did very little to help Polish Jews. Recently a French writer publishes a book about Polish antisemitism, there are no Polish writers who can afford to write a book about antisemitsm of French people during WWII. Gross is criticized by many academic historians, I'll check when I have time. Xx236 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC) pl:Pogrom kielecki doesn't qote sources and contains discrepancies, eg. regarding the number of victims. I believe that the IPN two volumes study is the best source, I don't have it at hand. Xx236 (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I don't think there is one Jewish policy toward the Poles, it's rather a mixture of stereotypes and facts, and ignorance of the context - everything criminals in Poland did, existed also in other Easter European countries and eg. in France. But French collaborators were trend setters and Polish peasants were dumb.Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Monitor. WikiProject Poland Newsletter: Issue 1 (April 2011)
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

question about clan of Ostoja
Hi, my name is Marek Hajdovsky-Potapovic and I am from Czech Republic. Recently my father and my brother have spent some time looking for the history of our family and asked me for some help. Our search was successful in that we found that our ancestors from Ukraine were part of clan of Ostoja. Do you by any chance have any info on Ukrainian families from clan of Ostoja or maybe exactly our family? http://gerbovnik.ru/arms/1060.html - this is our family crest. Thank you in advance Sincerely yours Marek Hajdovsky-Potapovic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marekhajd (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Marek! I was glad to receive your message and yes, I do know about your family. I started with Hajdowski and get zero from that but then recognized that G and H was often mixed up by Russian authorities. Generally, there is information about almost all Ostoja families, there is ongoing research. Many Ostoja's moved to Ukraine, starting at least from 1370. There is quite a lot information! :) As for your family, it is spelled Gajdowski in several publications, also in the book of Uruski. So the history of your family is clearly there. There is certainly more to find out, the archives in Zytomir in Ukraine is full of documents. On reviewed list of the Ostoja families, it is written as Potapowicz branch of Ostoja. There is still no confirmation wherever your family moved from Poland as many others or from Lithuania witch also was common. So there might be some more info in Vilnius to be found. I suggest that we keep contact, this matter does not concern Wiki so it's better to discuss this somewhere else. The easiest way to communicate is though Facebook. There is a group there with a name "Ostoja Clan" witch hold exclusively Clan members where there is lot of different kind of information about the Clan and families. I suggest that you apply to enter the group and we will be able to continue this discussion. Your family is already represented. Kind regards, Camdan 01:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this is perfect news for our search. I just applied for the group membership. :) Thank you very much Marek Hajdovsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marekhajd (talk • contribs) 10:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Clan of Ostoja
I think you can nominate it at WP:GAN, yes. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 17:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, page numbers are needed, that's quite important. I don't know where the other editors are asking you to remove history, as you didn't link me to the discussion, my brief review suggests that the history present is well tied to the article. At best, some parts could be moved to article on szlachta, but I am not sure if this is indeed necessary. I'd also recommend that you ask for help on WT:POLAND in general rather than just from me, we have many friendly and helpful editors watching those pages (and I'd like to invite you to join us on them). PS. Could you update your signature so that it links back to your talk page? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 18:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Jewish-Polish relations
Hi. You can e-mail me with any questions, and I'll do my best to help: Special:EmailUser/Malik Shabazz. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You can either fill out the form at Special:EmailUser/Malik Shabazz or send me a message at mshabazz@pipeline.com. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I had a chance to quickly read your message, but I'll read it more carefully and respond over the weekend. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Signature
See this for help with your signature, you need to edit signature wiki code in the preferences. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Clan of Ostoja
Article appears to need some input to improve readabilty. My edits tend to have a light footprint, and do not modify content too substantially, but I may need some help with fact confirmation as I proceed, as the language is a little confusing in several places. FeatherPluma(talk) 17:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank You for your input and your concern. You are always welcome to edit and improve! The article is of course based on most realable sources that exist, the best we have of today. Language could be improved and I welcome any changes. Please let me know if there is any confustion or question about the sources. I will be more than happy to help Camdan 00:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Started a little work, at this point on the lede. Please confirm that I have not introduced unintended fact errors in the first 2 paragraphs of the article. I am going to work on this bit by bit with you, in tiny chunks. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Additional edits that I should be obliged if you would check. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Friendly furry wikipedia hug for you. Camden, let me know on my talk page when you have reviewed my recent posts. I'll then do some further edits, and continue to bounce this along with you. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Several points: 1. "mainstay" is not a widely used word in present English, and it has a slightly variable meaning (although there is a similarity of intent), for example it can refer to a prominent supporter, a pillar of the community, a champion, a friend, a person who backs a politician or a team. I don't recall being the person who chose the current meaning of the term in the article. Do any of these options express what is intended? 2. Once again, I am looking to you to check the fact status of the edits I have made today. Camden, please let me know on my talk page when you have reviewed these.FeatherPluma (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC) FeatherPluma (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not heard from you in a while. I continue to slowly work on Ostoja. As far as I can, I have edited the text to conform to vernacular English, and generally neither introduced or removed facts, although I have reworded things. Unless I have unintentionally introduced errors the content has not really been modified. I can see that this type of editing has several further rounds to go before the article reads with any ease. I continue to solicit your input to check for fact issues, and in particular, in regards to the issue of "mainstay" that you raised. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC) For your reference, I went back to the sentence that I think you are alluding to, which the record indicates read as, " Chaised by a group Teutonic Knights he succeeded to cross a river on horse nad in full armor, then after crossing the river he finally raised his voice so the Lord would hear him and said "Ostalem" which means "I still stay" and from this comes the name of Ostoja." I have edited this to, "Chased by a group Teutonic Knights, he had succeeded in crossing a river on horse despite being clad in full armor, and then raised his voice so the Lord would hear him and said "Ostalem" which means "I still stay" from which comes the name of Ostoja." If this isn't the sentence, which one is, please? FeatherPluma (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I continue work on Ostoja, as well as several spin-off projects. I have started on some more extensive modifications that aim to improve the chronological flow and general readability of the article. Since this is a summary article, a lot of material can be devolved to relevant Main Articles, some of which may need to be started. If it were possible for you to work on this, I would look for some input.FeatherPluma (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the place I think you had a concern regarding "mainstay" and found a way to phrase it without the error that had been inadvertently introduced. Your input on this project is sorely missed. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't copy and paste content instead of moving
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Jan z Jani a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Jan de Jani. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Jan Jani
Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue you touch upon is not knew, see Verifiability, not truth. Where we have problems with sources, it is acceptable to explain them in a footnote (see for example the long footnote I wrote at Armia Krajowa about its size). Sometimes we just have to accept no good sources are out there and wait for them. We can add "truth" to the articles, but note that it can be removed by others if there are no sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep starosta at a Polish name. There are often too many bad English translations of Polish terms (palatine, sigh). To reduce confusion, I think using the original Polish term is often preferable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, I am open to discussions, but the last time I checked, the problem was still that we do not have sources using the correct spelling. And as Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, we have to use the spelling used in sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting moves
I suggest you start a new WP:RM at the talk page of that article. A good argument to move it from z to of would be WP:USEENGLISH. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of interest
Perhaps you'd be interested in this. We have very few people who would be... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Clan of Ostoja for WP:DYK
To get the article to DYK you need either to expand it 5 fold within a week or so, or get it recognized as a Good Article through WP:GAN procedure. For a lenghty article, I think the latter is a better choice. Add the few missing references to the unreferenced sentences and you should have a good chance of getting both the DYK and GA status in few weeks (GA reviews are backlogged significantly). Let me know if you need any help! --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Interval look
At your request I've touched on some of the new content. I am happy to help. Please check that my edits did not inadvertently introduce errors. Take care. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Renaming an article
Please see the how to at WP:RM. Cheers, --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Polish heraldry
CAMDAN: Hello! I saw Your input in topic and I wonder if You have time to help in improving the article? Also, You added "In the year 1244, Bolesław, Duke of Masovia, identified members of the knights' clan as members of a genealogia:....". Is there any chance to get the reference so I can make citation?. Than You in advance! camdan (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference:

(Górecki 1992, pp. 183–185)

(English) Górecki, Piotr (1992). Economy, Society, and Lordship in Medieval Poland: 1100-1250. New York, NEW YORK: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-8419-1318-8. OCLC 25787903

Complete citation (see Szlachta):

In the year 1244, Bolesław, Duke of Masovia, identified members of the knights' clan as members of a genealogia:

"I received my good servitors [Raciborz and Albert] from the land of [Great] Poland, and from the clan [genealogia] called Jelito, with my well-disposed knowledge [i.e., consent and encouragement] and the cry [vocitatio], [that is], the godło, [by the name of] Nagody, and I established them in the said land of mine, Masovia, [on the military tenure described elsewhere in the charter]."

The documentation regarding Raciborz and Albert's tenure is the earliest surviving of the use of the clan name and cry defining the honorable status of Polish knights. The names of knightly genealogiae only came to be associated with heraldic devices later in the Middle Ages and in the early modern period. The Polish clan name and cry ritualized the ius militare, i.e., the power to command an army; and they had been used some time before 1244 to define knightly status. (Górecki 1992, pp. 183–185).

Exxess (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

C.Cleeve (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A certain user, and genealogy
Greetings and felicitations. I don't know you, but do you want to chime in here? You seem have some things in common with C.Cleeve—namely genealogy and a problem with a certain editor's practices. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm C.Cleeve and as the Doc said I've had a problem with ref to DNA and my family back to 1172 in the little piece I did on my 'clan' Cusack. Do you know a reference I can use that will satisfy the editor in question?

Kaiser Kitkat (talk)

No legal threats
This looks a lot like a legal threat, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Could you please read the policy I linked and refactor your post to remove the threats? ~Awilley (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed this rant. Camdan, not only does the Arbitration Committee have no authority or influence over activities on the Polish Wikipedia, neither do any administrators or bureaucrats here. I suggest perhaps going to Meta WikiMedia and speaking with a steward although they will not involve themselves in matters of content dispute. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 04:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There was no legal threat Awilley, I asked to review banning action. Thats all. @ Liz, thank you for Yuor kind respond. Best regards, Camdan.


 * Thank you for good thoughts on my talk, Listen to Bach, on his birthday ;) - see also and further down musing about defiance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem with your custom signature
You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.  (It might already be empty.)
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you. 18:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick note on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests
✅, please make any necessary post move cleanups. Best regards Megan☺️  Talk to the monster  10:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Danielewicz
Thanks for your comment! I think that the proper approach is to use the Russian spelling (Danilovich/Данилович) for individuals who lived in 14-15 centuries and moved between Muscovy, Pskov and Lithuania; and to use the Polish spelling for their descendants in Poland/Lithuania. Alaexis¿question? 06:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ostoja Danielewicz, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Elector and Vice-regent. 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) 06:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> 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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Clan Ostoja has been nominated for merging
Category:Clan Ostoja has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcelus (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)