User talk:Setergh

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Battle of Pinsk. Thanks! -- NotCharizard ^🗨 04:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Umakant Bhalerao was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle of Pinsk and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Setergh! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for creating the draft. While reviewing your work, I noticed some minor issues and wanted to bring them to your attention. Kindly note that Wikipedia relies on sources. You need to provide references for everything you add. Also, Instead of listing sources at the end, you should add them in the text so that anyone can verify that information. If you require assistance with citing your sources, please refer to WP:CS.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Czechia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add citations to two paragraphs that are missing them at the end? Ping me when you do so and I'll publish your work, all that's missing IMHO are those citations for those few sentences. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't see any paragraphs that are missing any citations, so I don't exactly understand what you mean? Setergh (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citation needed templates to parts that need them - I hope this helps you locate the parts that need footnotes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the citations. I have now added it in both spots (deleted some info on one of the parts and replaced it with another one which actually has a reference to it). I hope this will allow the article to get approved. Setergh (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. @Notcharizard - if you concur, can you publish it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pinsk, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from pl:Bitwa pod Pińskiem to Battle of Pinsk. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. For example:

Content in this edit is translated from the existing Polish Wikipedia article at [[:pl:Exact name of Polish article]]; see its history for attribution.

It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Feel free to reply with any questions, or check out the Wikipedia:Tea house. Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Setergh. Thanks for attempting attribution in this edit, but that wasn't right, and I reverted it. The translation attribution statement doesn't go in the article itself, but rather in the edit summary, using a dummy edit. I went ahead and added the attribution to that article for you. Next time, when you add attribution in the same edit as your translated content, see WP:TFOLWP for the model statement text. If you forget, and have to add it in later, see WP:RIA for the model statement text. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Setergh, the article Battle of Pinsk, which you translated from Bitwa pod Pińskiem, has a couple dozen external links in the body of the article that link directly to articles on Polish Wikipedia. Per WP:NOELBODY, these are not allowed, with rare exceptions. Please use wikilinks to equivalent articles on English Wikipedia, where such exist. In the following examples, please replace the values on the left, with the ones on the right:

• [[:pl:Janów_(Białoruś)|Janow]] ⟶ [[Ivanava]]
• [[:pl:Kosów_(Białoruś)|Kosow]] ⟶ [[Kosava, Belarus]]

Where an equivalent article does *not* exist on English Wikipedia, you may use template {{interlanguage link}} instead (or its abbreviated name, {{ill}} ) as in these two examples:

• [[:pl:Byteń|Byten]] ⟶ {{ill|Byteń|pl|v=sup}}
• [[:pl:4 Rewolucyjny Pułk Warszawski|4th Revolutionary Warsaw Regiment]] ⟶ {{ill|4th Revolutionary Warsaw Regiment|pl|4 Rewolucyjny Pułk Warszawski|v=sup}} (but, see below about proper noun translation, *before* replacing this one)

After you have done those, there are about 18 more external links in the article; please fix them in the same way.

Note that when translating a proper noun in Polish, it is not like translating running text; in the latter case, it is normal if ten different translators come up with ten different ways, all essentially equivalent, of expressing a sentence from Polish Wikipedia in English. That is okay. But it is not okay for translating a proper noun. If the proper noun is a subject that is studied and written about by historians in English, then it is important to use the English words they use, not words we choose from our knowledge of the two languages.

As an example, consider the first example, which you translated as "Janow". But English Wikipedia uses Ivanava for this, so that is the term that should be used here, regardless what automatic translation may say. Now consider the last example, where Wikipedia does not have an equivalent article: 4 Rewolucyjny Pułk Warszawski. For this, you chose "4th Revolutionary Warsaw Regiment" as the English term. Are these your words, or did you find that phrase in an English book or journal? Because if there are reliable sources about this regiment in English, then we have to use their words, not ours. You have to look into what title is used most commonly in English sources. For example, Davies (2011) calls this the "4th Red Regiment of Warsaw Hussars" on page 40, unless that is referring to something else?

These are the things you have to think about in translating proper nouns. It is not so much "translating" a proper noun, as it is "finding the equivalent term"—that is, finding what English historians call it. So in the last example above, we should replace the first parameter with the English name of the regiment with whatever your research finds is the common name for the regiment is in English. If there is disagreement among sources, pick the most common one, or the one by the most reliable historian, if there are very few examples to be found. Does this make sense? Adding 7804j, Piotrus. Mathglot (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry for these mistakes. Battle of Pińsk was the first ever page I've created, therefore it is loaded with many mistakes. I try my hardest not to such mistakes nowadays. Thank you for telling me this. Setergh (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Setergh, mistakes are okay, that's how we all learn. If you have any questions about how to fix these, just ask. The business with interlanguage links and finding the right English name for a non-existent topic can be tricky, so ask for help if you need it. It would be good to start with a basic understanding of WP:COMMONNAME—that helps editors here decide what is the right title for a Wikipedia article. After that, searching reliable sources for the topic helps you decide what title is used the most in English, and the same technique can be used for deciding on what English name to place in the first parameter of template {{interlanguage link}} ( {{ill}} ). I assume you know how to search Google books, and Google scholar, right? These are not the only way to find reliable sources, but they are a good start. See also the Wikipedia Library. Mathglot (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who translated dozens if not hundreds of articles from Polish to English - feel free to ask me for help as well. Cheers. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Setergh, so, now that you've been told about it, can you please edit Battle of Pinsk and replace direct external links with wikilinks or {{ill}} templates, as explained above? There are still six external links in in the body that need attention; the ones in the references or in the § Further reading section are fine and do not need to be changed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have now replaced them. Sorry for not having done it sooner, I was lazy for whatever reason and just ignored it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention in the first place though! Setergh (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I've fully replaced all of them (at least I think so), just realised there were many more. Once again, sorry for my ignorance.

I know this doesn't have anything to do with the topic, but could you review the grade of the page? I don't feel like it deserves only Start-class anymore as many people have added/contributed a lot to it since its original state. Thank you, Setergh (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article class evaluation is not one of my strong points or areas of interest, so feel free to reach out to someone else about that. Mathglot (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thank you for your reply. Setergh (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome Setergh! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, joining the project, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggesting this to me, I'll consider it. Setergh (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now joined. Setergh (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Byteń, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zarzecze. 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) 20:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Yaroslav the Wise's attack on Brest. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Setergh, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a page of mine was moved back to draftspace doesn't mean I just got onto wikipedia 😭🙏 Setergh (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you are improving the article, here is this one List of wars involving Poland, would you be able to improve it by breaking down the whole article from Polish thanks in advance :> Polish Piast (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try, but the thing is there is no way I'm putting all the wars as the Polish wikipedia tends to be really unreliable at times and a ton of these wars look like they were just put in without any real evidence. Therefore I'll definitely add more, but I doubt I'll add each one due to lack of evidence for them. Setergh (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be that on a Polish wikipedia you didn't have to give a list of references just a bibliography, all the stuff is reliable, etc. Polish Piast (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but that doesn't mean it is all reliable. For all I know a lot of it could easily be put on there 15-20 years ago. I'll only put stuff that I'll manage to confirm did indeed happen. Setergh (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lemonaka was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Polish–Teutonic War

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Czechia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-Lemonaka 02:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! I have noticed that you have added the Kiev uprising, there is only one problem about this event, which is only mentioned in the Ruthenian Chronicles (Primary Chronicle,Radziwiłł Chronicle), while the Polish (Gallus Anonymus,Wincenty Kadłubek) ones say that such an uprising never took place. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would like to invite @Dolbegos, who added this to the List Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. As you realised, no I did not add it, so I don't particularly get why you went to my talk page? I just changed up the result. Setergh (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you added the {{Multiple issues}} template since the section says this is Jan Dlugosz's version as he wrote, in addition to {{Single Source}}, despite the article being based on multiple sources. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! The reason I added the "One reference" is because the article is LARGELY based on a single source. (This article relies largely or entirely on a single source.)

I don't exactly understand if all the references you have used all include what Jan Długosz said, but that is still largely based on a single source.

Also, even though Jan Długosz wrote it a certain way, doesn't mean you have to write it the same way. Wikipedia wants you to write stuff in an encoclypedic tone, while the way Jan Długosz wrote it is in a story-telling tone.

If you understand where I'm coming from, I hope you wouldn't mind me bringing back the issues and corrections to tone that I put in place. Setergh (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quotation from his chronicle (I added at the end that what he wrote) , I have added notes because some things need to be noted Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get this, but once again, the only source you have (or at least the one you mostly use) comes from Jan Długosz.

"This article relies largely or entirely on a single source." correlates with this.

And about the encyclopedic tone, I'm now unsure myself. I get that it is a quotation but I'm unsure if it would be better for it to just be rewritten, although I think someone more experienced than me should decide this.

I think that the encyclopedic tone issue shouldn't be there anymore, but "This article relies largely or entirely on a single source." should be.

Just wanted to mention, thank you for your work on Polish history (involving stuff such as List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia). Setergh (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Jan Długosz's version of the battle, I don't think you understand what I mean so I'll explain it to you in Polish(Because you know Polish):

Chodzi oto że to wersja bitwy Jana Długosza, zauważ że dodałem że to cytat. Chyba miałeś na myśli z Tym "Single Source" że jest kategoria gdzie tylko jest tylko zacytowany Jan Długosz, no jest, bo to jego wersja bitwy, może lepiej ci wytłumaczę wejdź w to Primary sources, jeśli wiesz czym są po angielsku primary sources w naszym języku pierwotne źródła, to kroniki głównie i tyle. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matko, dopiero zauważyłem że te cytaty to niby mówią że są źródła w "Battle according Jan Długosz". Mój błąd.

Z czego rozumiem, to jest kilka źródeł ale Jan Długosz je wziął I o nich napisał? Setergh (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan długosz to polski kronikarz, Primary sources mogą mieć osobne kategorię jak tutaj (jeśli w grę wchodzi że posiadają inną wersję bitwy) ;) I nic się nie stało wiadomo że trzeba zbadać wiarygodność tego wszystkiego itp. Życzę miłego dnia. Polski Piast from Poland (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiem akurat że Jan Długosz to Polski kronikarz, używałem już jego dzieła kilka razy.

Dzięki za wyjaśnienie. Rozumiem już o co chodzi I dalej nic nie zmienie o tej stronie (no oprócz jeżeli będzie akurat trzeba oczywiście).

Życzę tobie też miłego dnia! Setergh (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An issue on Neutral point of view has been created == Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Incorrect_colour_scheme_for_List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_against] Nbarchaeo (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sulaymaniyah (1991): it was kurdish rebels victory because peshmerga new launch in 20 july 185.84.70.93 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Turkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Setergh (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to ask you a question. You are Polish, right? I thought it would be interesting and surprising for you as a history buff (or I'm assuming that you are, lol) that many Polish people served the Ottoman Empire (and that's just the ones who are well-known, of course). Personally, I'm also planning on creating a few articles on such Poles (the closest thing to an article about Poland I've created is Adolf Farkas, though he is Hungarian). I'm also planning on creating an article about Poles in Turkey (if you've got anything interesting to share, do let me know). Thanks. Perast (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heya!

I am indeed Polish, yes.

I do know about this indeed and kind of like the Ottoman Empire even! (Well, obviously not too much due to other things, but I have some respect for it).

As for if I have anything interesting to share, sadly no, I do not. I barely know anything about this topic except that the Ottoman Empire didn't recognise the Partitions of Poland for example. Although if you ever want any help or perhaps just a comment I'm always willing to help.

Thank you for reaching out! And I'm guessing you are Turkish? Setergh (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome, I like Poland a lot too actually. A fascinating country with a great history, for sure. After the last Ottoman-Polish war (1700 and later) Poles and Turks were very friendly and in fact, as you stated, it was the only country to not recognise the partitions. Also I remember reading in multiple Polish sources that after the 1830 and 1848 revolutions, most Poles and Hungarians involved in the uprisings fled to the Ottoman Empire, which is another cool fact that is not talked about often.

Thanks for the offer, I'm sure we'll come across each other a lot of times while editing. Feel free to email me [1] if you want to discuss more.

And yes, I am. Perast (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Poles did indeed move to the Ottoman Empire during its revolutions (including the January Uprising for example)!

The Polish Legion in Turkey fought in both the Crimean War and the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), and we also fought alongside you in the Russo-Circassian War.

Also uh, what does history buff mean? Setergh (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We really do have such a cool and long history with each other that we're not taught about.

History buff just means someone who loves history a lot. Perast (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, okay, then yes, I am indeed a history buff.

And just wanted to say, if anyone does any shenanigans on List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Turkey like someone did recently, I don't associate myself with them. Setergh (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. What period interests you most?

Thanks for letting me know, I left a warning on their talk page. Hopefully they'll stop. Perast (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't really say I have a specific period that interests me most, though I really only interest myself with anything after the 14th/15th century (except when it comes to Poland, for that I'm interested in just its entire history).

And thank you! Setergh (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to inform, I've changed the result of the 1666–1671 war to a Polish–Lithuanian victory.

Figured I should let you know in case you perhaps know something that can make this result disputed or anything of the sorts. Setergh (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I haven't looked at sources discussing this war just yet (there barely are any). I looked at the source used and it merely states that it was a victory without explanation. However, I do have a question. Were the Ottomans even military involved in that war? Any source I find say that the Ottomans merely supported the Tatars and Cossacks politically, and were dragged into the conflict militarily in 1672. Perast (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I changed the results for Polish–Ottoman War (1672–1676), check the end of this (or read it all if you want) for the reason. If you have an objection, let me know. Perast (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for letting me know, I'll check on this later.

As for "Were the Ottomans even military involved in that war?" it seems to me that they were not, so go ahead and remove that war if you want. Setergh (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I made the necessary changes to these articles. As for the 1672 war, if you have an objection after reading the talk page, feel free to state it there. Perast (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"if you have an objection after reading the talk page, feel free to state it there."

My mistake, I was already in the process of writing before seeing this. Setergh (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1st source: "In this, though the famous John Sobieski won several brilliant victories both before and after his election to the Polish crown, yet Poland lost the strong town of Kaminiec, and the whole province of Podolia. This should be noticed, as it was the last time that the Turks won any large territory from any Christian power, as distinguished from merely winning back territory which they had held before. In this war both Sultan Mahomet and his minister Kiuprili had a share. Its issue is instructive. Sobieski won battles, but the Turks kept Podolia. For the Turks were just now ruled, in the person of Kiuprili, by a single wise and strong will, while, though the Poles are one of the bravest nations on earth, yet the weak and disorderly nature of their government made them constantly lose in other ways what they won in fighting"

I'm guessing this is the part you're referencing. I'm unsure how reliable to an Ottoman victory this is, as it seems to constantly switch between "The Polish did well in this, but the Ottomans got this", although I do understand why this is used as a source, even though it doesn't seem to directly mention an Ottoman victory.

2nd source: "For the moment, however, Sobieski’s involvement with the fractious Polish nobles enabled the sultan to send his armies back into the Ukraine during the summers of 1675 and 1676. But these were really nothing more than raids that, although they went deep into Poland, were defeated several times. Sobieski became involved in the west with a new war against Sweden, so that he agreed to a new treaty at Zoravno (October 27, 1676) by which the provisions of Buczacz were reconfirmed, with Podolya under direct Ottoman rule and the rest of the Ukraine under the sultan’s suzerainty. This marked the high point of Ottoman expansion into eastern Europe, although provisions allowing the Poles to retain their garrisons in the north left them in a position to intervene later once the Ottomans’ ability to resist was weakened."

Once again, it feels like both sides are having bonuses mentioned. This also doesn't directly mention an Ottoman victory, just that they gained land in the final treaty, although so did the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Overall, it seems to me that the two sources don't particularly choose a winner. At least, the first one sure, seems to be Ottoman leaning, although the second seems to be more Polish leaning. Either way, how the text seems to me doesn't matter (WP:OR), but overall, neither state an Ottoman victory.

Both sources definitely support a Polish–Lithuanian military victory (obviously this does not matter though), and both mention how in the end the Ottoman Empire heavily struggled against them. Overall, this war seems to be Inconclusive, although it's not as if any sources seem to particularly mention an exact result. Setergh (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources:

1st: https://archive.org/details/longmanhandbooko0000cook_y6b4/page/134/mode/2up?q=October "A third and final Ottoman invasion (with 200,000 forces) failed to take the fortified Polish positions at Zorawno (September—October 1676). With this effective stalemate, terms were agreed at the Treaty of Żurawno in October. Most of the Ottoman Polish conquests were surrendered, Podolia was divided and western Ukraine was formally returned to Poland."

2nd: https://archive.org/details/historyofmiddlee0000tiha_h9b3/page/n3/mode/2up?q=1676 "It was at this point that John III Sobieski (1674-1696), a man of providence, was elected king of Poland. He defeated the invading Turks at Lvov in 1675. In the Treaty of Zuravna in 1676, he regained some of the lost Ukrainian territories." Setergh (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was already stated in the talk page that military victories during the war have no impact on the final result of the war. The war didn't end inconclusively, what happened (per the articles of the two treaties), at first the Ottomans gained a lot of land and then some of those lands they first gained were lost in the second treaty. This is what the 2 other sources you just sent confirm as well. In short, the Ottomans firstly gained a lot of land in the first treaty, but some of this was lost in the second treaty. Overall, however, they emerged victorious having gained land compared to before the war. Perast (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It was already stated in the talk page that military victories during the war have no impact on the final result of the war."

Yeah, I know, hence why I clearly stated "(obviously this does not matter though)".

As for the rest, yeah, I suppose the only thing to get out of this is an Ottoman victory. The Poles and Lithuanians managed to reduce their losses, but they still had some in the end. Only thing that seems to really dispute this is the 2nd out of the 4 sources "although provisions allowing the Poles to retain their garrisons in the north left them in a position to intervene later once the Ottomans’ ability to resist was weakened.".

Either way, I suppose this is indeed an Ottoman victory, so go for it (and add it to the Polish–Ottoman Wars page as well if you haven't already). Setergh (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy that we see eye to eye once again. Thank you for being reasonable.

By the way, are you planning any articles right now? Would be interesting to know about. Perast (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays I really just make the articles a friend of mine tells me to make, my next one is going to be Battle of Bydgoszcz (Polish version: https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitwa_pod_Bydgoszczą) (No I will not be just straight up translating it though)

"I'm happy that we see eye to eye once again. Thank you for being reasonable."

I mean, if you're in the right, then I suppose that there's no point in me not being reasonable anyway, but thank you too. Setergh (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems interesting, I didn't know about the Kościuszko Uprising. It's surprising how many Baltic German commanders there were in Russian service though, and they killed many Poles in history afaik. Perast (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides killed many Poles, yeah (although I suppose we did the same back, especially to Germany). It may also be surprising to know that Poland actually won more wars against Germany and Russia (especially when people's main view of these wars is Germany and Russia completely annihilating Poland).

1. List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Germany
2. List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Russia (I wouldn't take this fully for granted as the result is practically the same and there may be missing wars)

Setergh (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, I'll make sure to look at them in my spare time. The win/loss ratio between Poland and Germany is very surprising though, didn't expect that. Perast (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, sorry to bother but: https://books.google.pl/books?id=QjzYdCxumFcC&pg=PA465&dq=Polish–Ottoman+War+(1672–1676)+inconclusive&hl=pl&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEjLLCgOmIAxVnJhAIHdXmIRwQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q=Polish–Ottoman%20War%20(1672–1676)%20inconclusive&f=false

Page 465: "In 1672, the Ottoman army, led by Sultan Mehmed IV and Ahmed Pasha captured the key Polish fortress of Kamienice [...] Although the Polish–Lithuanian diet rejected the treaty and hetman Jan Sobieski won a brilliant victory against the Ottomans at Khotin (1673), the subsequent war proved inconclusive and ended with the truce of Żurawno (1676), confirmed by the Polish embassy to Istanbul (1678)"

So yes, there is a source that calls this war inconclusive. The only source that really points to an Ottoman victory for sure is the 1st out of the 4 sources, while the rest don't particularly give a clear answer.

Therefore, the result should be Disputed, linking both to the source that considers it an Ottoman victory and the one that considers it Inconclusive (preferably in some "Outcome" section). Setergh (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source. However, one historian disputing the result (without a reason, no less, while no other historian we've looked at would agree that its inconclusive) does not change the result of the war. You agreed with me that this war could not be considered inconclusive, and we have been through the reasons, but I can go through them again. Just by looking at the contents of the treaties we can see a clear winner:

Treaty of Buchach = Ottomans gain Podolia and parts of central Ukraine

Treaty of Żurawno = Poland regains 1/3 of lost territories in Ukraine

Overall, the Ottomans gain land and establish the Podolia Eyalet. Poland lost land during the war, but recovered some of it with the last treaty. Nevertheless, the Ottomans emerge victorious gaining land compared to before the war. Hopefully it makes more sense now. Perast (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"However, one historian disputing the result (without a reason, no less, while no other historian we've looked at would agree that its inconclusive) does not change the result of the war."

It does though? It's up to the historians what the result is, not us.

"You agreed with me that this war could not be considered inconclusive"

Only because there was only one source which seemed to support a complete result, and that result was Ottoman victory. This is now different considering we have another result, Inconclusive.

"Just by looking at the contents of the treaties we can see a clear winner:"

Once again, you do not decide who the winner is. This is WP:OR, you're deciding the result just by how the war went, not what actual historians state. Setergh (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We had a very similar discussion about this on Polish–Ottoman War (1633–1634). One of the historians if I remember correctly had suggested a Polish victory, but it was left at that. Without a reason, their opinion can't be included only because no other historian (at least from the ones we looked at) agreed with them; otherwise they wouldn't have to provide a reason. Also, the sources provided that describe/suggest the 1672-76 war as an Ottoman victory give their reasons (in the end, Ottomans conquer Podolia and parts of Ukraine, establishing the Podolia Eyalet). We do not look at what happened during the war, but what the result was. The final result was that the Ottomans conquered land.

Also, I read the source you sent a second time and they call the subsequent i.e. second half of the war as inconclusive, not the entire war (it was talking about the 1673 Battle of Khotyn before making this statement), which is a correct observation since the second treaty was more favourable to the Poles; but overall, they could not reclaim all their lost lands. Perast (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Sorry, I for some reason got no notification about this response.

I didn't realise that it said the second half of the war is inconclusive. If so, then fair enough, leave it at that.

Just wanted to also mention, I'm adding military victories in notes on the Polish-Ottoman Wars page. Setergh (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm adding military victories in notes on the Polish-Ottoman Wars page"

I'm only adding this where the side who lost still got a military victory, my mistake. Setergh (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds okay. Perast (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I recommend changing "List of armed conflicts involving Poland against Turkey" to "List of armed conflicts between Poland and Turkey"; seems like a more appropiate article title. Thoughts? Perast (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly see the point in this? Also every "List of armed conflicts" page has the word "involving" rather than "between", so it follows the pattern too. (But to be fair, 3/5 of those are mine) Setergh (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It makes more sense as with the current title the emphasis is put on Poland ("Poland against") while the suggested title is more neutral. Also, the "involving" articles are nearly always used for the wars of one country (aside from the ones you created) while "between" is used to indicate wars between two countries. It is a minor change tbh, but it does seem to be needed for neutral terminology and accuracy purposes. Perast (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you mean, and I suppose I could agree on this change (although I'd recommend bringing this up in every other one (well the Germany and UK vs Ireland were made by me but still). Setergh (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already made a move request on the talk page of the article, did you see it yet Perast (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, thanks for notifying me! I've left my opinion there. Setergh (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Sorry to bother, but I recently (well, yesterday) did my 1000th edit on Wikipedia. For this, I'm planning to make a GA-class page.

Do you have any ideas or any pages you want revamped? (Poland heavily preferred + I'd be guessing all big topics on Wikipedia have already gotten their own pages so I can only revamp, not make new)

Thank you! Setergh (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, congrats on your 1000th edit. What aspects of Polish history interest you most; a specific period, event, etc etc? Wouldn't want to suggest something that you'd find boring and wouldn't be motivated to turn into a GA-class article. Perast (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already mentioned this previously, but quite literally all periods of Polish history interest me.

Although, make sure it's well, quite a big topic cause I can't really turn a small topic with barely any knowledge about it into GA-class.

And thank you for the congratulations! Setergh (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few articles I found for now:

Danzig rebellion, Krakow uprising, Napoleonic Poland

People: It would be quite cool if you could expand Maria Aurora von Spiegel. Jozef Bem is interesting too.

Let me know the article you ultimately decide to work on. Perast (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, although I feel like your proposed articles just don't have enough information about them for GA-class (except maybe Duchy of Warsaw? Unsure though.)

As for expanding those people, I'll be happy to do that once I make my GA-class article.

I think I'll personally set my eyes on the Great Turkish War, definitely has GA-class potential with how big of a war it was and just, probably should be GA-class honestly. Setergh (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably chime in too if you do decide to work on those articles at any time.

Not a bad idea, I could probably help too if I have the time. Which sections are you thinking of especially expanding? Perast (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm gonna just expand, I'll probably completely revamp the page. I mean, it's honestly not very big currently anyway, and to get GA-class I feel like usually ~100 references are needed. Setergh (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yeah, I'll probably just expand. The page has a really good base, but just a huge lack of information. Setergh (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read most of the article, what information do you think are missing? Perast (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's just the sub-wars of the war don't really have info. I mean, look at the Russo-Turkish War for example, there's practically nothing. Polish-Ottoman War could be expanded too.

Most of the article is quite literally just the Battle of Vienna, which well, definitely a major part of it, but seriously? The article could straight up just have a ton more info, definitely enough for it to be worthy of GA-class. Although maybe it's a bit strange describing all the wars part of it cause well, they have their own dedicated kind of pages while still being big conflicts. Unsure how that'll work, but we'll see. Setergh (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there's barely information in those areas but like you said, the areas with a little amount of information already have a main page; which doesn't really make the article ideal for expansion. I would probably look to another article if I was you. Perast (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably expand either Polish–Lithuanian relations during World War II or Polish-Ukrainian conflict (1939-1947), unsure though. Setergh (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, Warsaw Uprising is rated as B-class, not even A.

I was unaware a lot of Lithuanians collaborated with the Nazis and that Ukraine + Poland warred together (I thought they were close allies in both cases). Perast (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know Warsaw Uprising is B-class. I think that's just cause no one has nominated it though.

And as for Ukraine, they're just extreme historical rivals of ours, although in this case it was just ultranationalist Ukrainians massacring the other side and then vice versa. Setergh (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided I'm going to just expand Polish–Lithuanian relations during World War II. Hopefully there's enough information about it so I can add a lot, we'll see though. Fingers crossed I suppose. Setergh (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely should be. It seems like an interesting topic too. Feel free to give me updates. Perast (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to! So far I'm just done with the Prelude, although that's obviously the easiest part so it'll probably take me a few weeks or so for everything, I'm rather lazy. Setergh (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been making major overhauls compared to the original article? I'm assuming you are so when you are done with your changes and make the edit to the article, I suggest you add a topic on the talk page in case other editors have an issue with your changes.

And I can relate honestly, it is quite exhausting and time-consuming going through many sources and processing what is written into an article. Perast (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have indeed been making major overhauls in my sandbox.

As for the topic, yeah sure, I'll add the topic to the talk page tomorrow, thank you for suggesting it.

And sadly yeah, going through so many sources is insanely time consuming. I know that you can relate, especially when it comes to that one list of yours about generals or whatever who died to the Ottoman Empire. Setergh (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure to take a look in my spare time, which parts did you completely overhaul again? I might help fix grammar, typos etc (if there are any), if I have the time.

Lol, yes that list took me ages. I probably won't make another list article as they seem to be quite demanding. Perast (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe not overhaul, I think I misunderstood the word. A bit of the prelude was overhauled along with some of the main part currently, but a lot of it is also just copied from the original article as well. I'm mostly just making additions.

When it comes to lists, I'm planning to also make a GL-class list someday, unsure which list it'll be though. Setergh (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, you should encounter less issues or hopefully none at all if you're making medium-sized changes.

It is pretty hard to create a GL-class article as far as I know, definitely an amibitious task. Perast (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heya!

Just wanted to say, I'm pretty far in now. If you wanna check out the page so far, my sandbox is available through my user page. Setergh (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, I'll be sure to check it out until tomorrow - I'll try to respond to your query about the Polish involvement in Mohacs then too. Perast (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you! Setergh (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You checked it out yet? Setergh (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me, I can't lie I totally forgot to. I will make sure to by tomorrow, and might give suggestions if needed. Which sections did you especially overhaul? Perast (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest with you, the page is just completely overhauled (although some information is obviously still left in if it has significance). Setergh (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I am currently reading the page. Compared to the original version, it definitely looks like you put a lot of effort into the article.

As I am reading, if you will allow me to, I'll make some changes (such as fixing typos, grammar, structure of a sentence, etc). Anything specific change you disagree with, you can obviously change back to the original. Perast (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! And any sort of changes/fixes will be gladly appreciated (though just know, I do live in the UK which is why there is British English). Setergh (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I write my articles in British English too so that is not an issue. Perast (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And suggestions would be gladly appreciated! It's not really the finished version of the page (and I hope to be able to add more) but feedback would be really helpful. Setergh (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I finished reading the article and made changes along the way (feel free to check them and tell me if there is anything you disagree with).

It was definitely an interesting read and has increased my understanding of Polish-Lithuanian relations as I was unaware that there was a period in which they were enemies.

Keep updating me on the progress of the article. Perast (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you learned something from it, after all it is the whole point of Wikipedia articles.

And thank you so much for helping! You've definitely made important changes which are way better than anything I had put earlier.

I'll be sure to update you on the progress of the article. How close would you say it is to GA-class currently? And is there anything I should improve/add? Setergh (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll be happy to help once again when you've completed the article.

I would still suggest expanding all sections of the article; especially the World War II, Prelude (more context needed in my opinion), and Aftermath sections (in order of importance). Talk about more events too.

Then when the article is ready, you could most definitely nominate it for Good Article by that point, and I believe you'd be successful. Though it isn't an easy process as they'll have you make a lot of changes to the article and it could take months to be approved; just a heads up. Perast (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you know any military based (like wars) articles that are GA-class? It'd be nice to have a reference. Setergh (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan War (1645–1669) is a good example Perast (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Didn't even know this war existed honestly. Setergh (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottoman–Venetian wars are a mess to be honest, most of it isn't common knowledge but some of them are fairly major wars. Reminds me of Polish-Swedish wars, not well-known but pretty interesting. Perast (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely say that the Polish-Swedish Wars are way more known than Ottoman-Venetian Wars, though. But I suppose that's cause Venice wasn't particularly as big as the Ottoman Empire, Poland (PLC) and the Swedish Empire. Setergh (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which war that Poland has fought interests you the most? Perast (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, zero clue.

I don't really specialise in knowing tons about a specific topic, more just some about tons of things. Not as if I'm trying to say I know practically nothing about topics, just well, not tons and tons.

Actually, now that I think about it, probably the Polish–Ukrainian conflict. Not particularly something that's focused on (except for Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia), and I find it quite interesting. Won't deny, it is mostly just the Volhynia and Eastern Galicia massacres and then Polish revenge through massacres. Setergh (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought Poland and Ukraine were very close (as with Lithuania), but as always it is much more nuanced than that. Though I am aware that Poland's relations with Ukraine and Lithuania are close once again; how true is this? Perast (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's definitely true. We're on good terms with both countries, so I wouldn't say otherwise. Setergh (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is good to know. Though I have met a few Poles who do not exactly have a fond view of Ukrainians, do you know why that could be?

As for Lithuania, Seyfeddin Bey is definitely an interesting figure who made bold statements. Even as a Lithuanian himself, he wrote that the only historical ally of the Poles was the Ottomans. His article is a good read for sure, and if you are interested, it would be pretty cool to have it translated into the Polish Wikipedia. Perast (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I recently found about Adampol, which is super cool; thought you would be interested in it too.

By the way, I have a small favour to ask of you. Are you able to see whether there is much information & sources in Polish referring to Maria Aurora von Spiegel since I am planning to expand that article sometime soon and there are not many English sources referring to her. Perast (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew about Adampol! It's really interesting though, good to know now.

I'll be sure to try and find any Polish sources referring to Maria, although I'm unsure how successful I will be. Setergh (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I look forward to your findings. You don't have to even read entire pages, as long as you can provide sources that talk about her a good amount; that would be enough for me, and I'd just have to use Google Translate. Perast (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get on it right now, I somehow forgot instantly, my mistake. Setergh (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts involving Ireland against the United Kingdom, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]