User talk:Kansas Bear/Archive 3

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Safavids

Hello. What do you suggest for the Safavids page? I think that there should not be any reference to their origin in the intro, since this is a controversial toppic and because the many sources contradict each other. The origin should be discussed in the "origin" section and the reader should be given a transparent summary of all reliable sources. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.143.168 (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

expanding Muslim military history task force

I have been reelected coordinator and brought up the old discussion about expanding Muslim military history to the present day. This has been an issue raised by Muslim editors when the task force was founded. It would be great if you could help expanding the articles that present what makes Islams treatment of war effect especially the Muslim warfare. I have been reading a bit on the topic and can help you with advice, but feel myself not confident enough with my limited knowledge. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pontic Greek Genocide

Hi Kansas Bear. Thank you for your message and for your tactful approach but tact is completely unnecessary in this case. Far from being a personal conversation, this topic is open to anyone. Your contribution was appreciated and this is why I personally thanked you on the talk page (diff). I agree with you. I have been in difficult conversations before but this one is exceptional in the sense of all the semantic inventions employed to change the title of the article, in spite of all the available information. That's why when I saw your comments I realised that, despite all the fog raised in the discussion, there were other people, external to the debate, who could see through that. Seeing also that you are a historian made your comments even more relevant. Please consider this an invitation to further contribute to this debate. Your expertise is greatly needed in such a difficult topic. Thanks again and take care. Dr.K. (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Kansas Bear for your message. It is remarkable how your perception of this situation regarding Phlip's stance is identical to mine. If you noticed I don't participate in this debate any longer due to the fact that despite my arguments and objections and the many more arguments presented from other users as well as your well taken points about the holocaust etc., we all seem to be talking to a wall. I don't know where this is going given his attitude but others are still participating for some reason submitting loads of new sources. Anyway this whole process looks irregular. Maybe we have to have another admin/expert or a group of admins that can take over this exchange and handle it in a more objective manner. Thank you again because you completely validated my original perception of Philip's attitude point by point and I really appreciate that. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Guenter Lewy

I have reverted your recent edits to this article per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material, as they employed an original research interpretation of the sources cited to advance a controversial claim concerning a living person contained nowhere in the sources themselves. Please note that per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Blocking, your account may be blocked if you continue to restore this material. John254 22:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to panic, sooner or later someone in wiki was going to disagree with you. Thats when you use the talkpage and quote from reliable sources. And In Lewy's case you can actually quote him. I also replied here --VartanM (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Hi can you comment here: [[1]]. Since I think you have been watching this guy and his irrational claims, as well as his foul language. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dallas Dhu

Ha. Slainte Nestorius (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Kansas Bear. You have new messages at Nestorius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

EOKA edit

Hi Kansas Bear.

Quick question - I tweaked the EOKA article (anonymously unfortunately) as Grivas didn't appear to have had a distinguished WWII? I appreciate this is a touchy subject so I may be wrong, but couldn't see anything in the actual Grivas item to support this. His early military career seems to be distinguished (decorated for bravery, etc) but was there anything similar for WWII?

Cheers Alunwyn (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

PKK as a terrorist organization

Why you are removing the "terrorist" term? --Ilhanli (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"The PKK is listed as a terrorist organization" and "The PKK is a terrorist organization" are very different thing. What isn't needed is a person with nationalistic intentions, trying to "glorify" a terroris organization which killed even Kurdish babies, which babies' familes refused to help PKK [2]. --Ilhanli (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC) If there is a source that it is a terrorist organization, then it means that it is a terrorist organization. Or can we say that "Hitler is listed as main man of killing the Jews"? Is listed... is listed... Al-Qaeda is listed as terrorist organization but it is not?--Ilhanli (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean this statement,

Al-Qaeda has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council,[5] the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General,[6][7] the Commission of the European Communities of the European Union,[8] the United States Department of State,[9] the Australian Government,[10] Public Safety Canada,[11] the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs,[12] Japan's Diplomatic Bluebook,[13] South Korean Foreign Ministry,[14] the Dutch Military Intelligence and Security Service,[15] the United Kingdom Home Office,[16] Pakistan, Russia,[17] the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs,[18] and the Swiss Government.[19]

Sounds similar to this statement:

The PKK is listed as a terrorist organization internationally by a number of states and organizations, including the United States,[6][7] NATO and the European Union.[8]

Both are statements backed by documentation. Not simple childish nationalistic libel. Kansas Bear (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So you mean that this statement should be chanced:

"The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States." as

"The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda according to USA government and mass media upon the United States.

So, you say that the firs statement above is written by a child? There are examples like that. Why there are two different standards?

OK, you will learn them while you grow.--Ilhanli (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Typical, when you can't win the argument, you resort to Strawman Fallacies. So far, you've posted nationalism, libel, and logic fallacies. Continue your personal attacks and you'll be blocked soon enough. Kansas Bear (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just a matter of the Wikipedia structure and time, not that I am wrong. --Ilhanli (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, again. Hamas for example:

Ḥamas (حركة حماس; acronym: حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, or Ḥarakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya or "Islamic Resistance Movement"[citation needed]) is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist[1] militant organization and political party which currently holds a majority of seats in the elected legislative council of the Palestinian Authority.

Hezbollah:

Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizba-llāh,[2] literally "party of God") is a Shi'a Islamic political and paramilitary organisation based in Lebanon. The group's official name in Arabic is Hizb Allah Al-moqawama Al-Islamiyah fi Lubnan

Odd, both opening statements DO NOT mention them being terrorist organizations. Yet you in your puerile POV insist on making that type of change for the PKK. These examples prove your POV is nationalistically driven and biased. Kansas Bear (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So you claim that EU and USA are nationalist and biased, too.--Ilhanli (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Spare me your strawman fallacies. If you can't accept the facts, that is your problem. Kansas Bear (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I tried to edit an article regarding this issue a bit hastily. I was just a bit too emotional as I lost 2 relatives in a bomb blast in Istanbul that was conducted by this group unfortunately. I just wish all acts of terrorism and warfare stop so no one else will ever be in sorrow. Anyways I'm not really a nationalist (in fact my political views lean towards social democracy but I'm going off track now), but I just can't seem to understand your arguement no matter how much I try to understand it. What more do terrorist groups have to do to be branded a terrorist organisation by some people? Or would they only be a 'terrorist organisation' if they directly oppose the USA or EU? If a group is confirmed to commit acts of terrorism (which you confirm as well I believe, as the article points out facts and they have not been deleted; I appreciate the effort in the article by the way) then isn't that enough for them to be a terrorist group in reality? Thanks.Joebobby1985 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have any questions regarding Wiki-policies[3], please feel free to contact an Admin. Kansas Bear (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the link. It cleared it up a bit now. I checked the page on Al'Qaeda and its written in the same manner. Joebobby1985 (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Erich Feigl

An article that you have been involved in editing, Erich Feigl, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Feigl. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Namsos (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali of Egypt

Hey Kansas Bear,

Regarding your question on whether Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt spoke Arabic, I can confirm that there are decrees written in Arabic signed by Muhammad Ali in museums in Egypt. There are also many statements in Arabic by Muhammad Ali that are documented in Egyptian historical literature. The history as taught in Egypt is that upon his arrival in Egypt, Muhammad Ali's Arabic was essentially limited to Koranic recitation common to practicing Muslims of all nationalities; in addition to his native tongue of Albanian, his was also competent in Ottoman Turkish, a prerequisite for serving in the Ottoman military; during his nearly 50 years in Egypt, he developed competency in Arabic (at the time, both Albanian and Turkish were written in the Arabic script, making this transition easier), however, it is also stated that his knowledge of Arabic was inferior to Ottoman Turkish, and of course far inferior to his knowledge of Albanian; this was also the case with the senior members of the Egyptian military and aristocracy (who were also Albanian-Macedonians), explaining why Albanian and Ottoman Turkish retained a primary role in Egypt until the reign of Ismail Pasha. As stated, this is the history taught in Egypt.

Of anecdotal nature, the validity of which I cannot be equally sure, is that some aristocrats and military officers complained to Ismail Pasha of his insistence on the use of Arabic by asserting that Muhammad Ali's use of Arabic was for formal purposes inside Egypt only and that he continued to use Albanian among his family and advisors, and Ottoman Turkish for his relations with the Porte.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you. Please note that as this is a shared computer used by numerous people, any replies that you might leave might not immediately be seen by me.

84.66.10.99 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaston d'Orléans

Kansas Bear: Please go to Talk:Gaston, Duke of Orléans. Frania W. (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page. I didn't semi-protect it because typically we only s-protect for cases of obvious vandalism, not content disputes. Regardless, hopefully this will force the anon to discuss his/her edits on the talk page. Khoikhoi 05:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting my Edits

It was quite silly of you to revert my edits on the Assyrian Genocide page without considering why I made the changes. If you examine the actual sources, you'll will note they don't speak of "Pontic Greeks" but "Greeks", not "Pontic Greek Genocide" but "Greek Genocide". If you want them to pertain specifically to Pontus, then please change the sources accordingly. Thank you. Bebek101 (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re.Gaston d'Orleans

Hello Kansas Bear and thank you for contacting me. Sorry I couldn't reply earlier, but you left your message on my talk page shortly after I went to bed. I see that the article is now fully protected so no further disruption shall occur for some time. Maybe it is now time to discuss with that IP the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of his edits. Because if his edits are deemed inaccurate and lacking sources, he will not be allowed to keep reinstating them in the article, even after the protection is lifted. Regards, Húsönd 13:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe Frania Wisniewska has illustrated 81.159.252.120's mistakes. Also, 81.159.252.120 has graced us on the Gaston d'Orleans talk page with his childish insults[4]. Kansas Bear (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Adnan Adivar

This is totally inappropriate. Please do not make any more uncivil comments like that again. Users who continue to violate WP:CIVIL will eventually be blocked. Khoikhoi 19:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit in Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78

You edited a quotation I had provided. There are two sentences from two sources describing the events in chronological order. You appended to the first sentence describing events taking place 10 days later. The original was as follows:

"They turned savagely on the Muslim Turks, whom they started to massacre." "The revolts now spread, leading to the massacre of hundreds of Muslims and the seizure of the main Ottoman forts in the Balkan ports nearby."

You tuned it into the following:

"They turned savagely on the Muslim Turks, whom they started to massacre. But within ten days their revolt was suppressed, with a savagery more terrible, by Turkish irregular forces let loose in revenge." "The revolts now spread, leading to the massacre of hundreds of Muslims and the seizure of the main Ottoman forts in the Balkan ports nearby."

How is the reader supposed to know the time of the events in the last sentence? Your edit is simply out of a bad intent. The events in the part you added is already mentioned in the following paragraph. You claim to be a historian but to appreciate history one has to have a sense of time and chronology. I will correct the article.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the sentence, "But within ten days their revolt was suppressed, with a savagery more terrible, by Turkish irregular forces let loose in revenge.", then you should talk to Kinross. It is a direct quote from the same book, same page and follows the quote that you gave. You simply removed the part you didn't agree with, as usual. I did not add the Shaw & Shaw quote, that follows the Kinross quote. If you are so worried about chronology, then remove your Kinross quote, since it doesn't state when those events transpired. Any changes will be reverted. Kansas Bear (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, can you please somehow provide (possibly scan) page 509 from Kinross? If we can see the entire page then this will hopefully resolve things. Khoikhoi 02:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you've added the following quotes from Kinross:

1. "They turned savagely on the Muslim Turks, whom they started to massacre. But within ten days their revolt was suppressed, with a savagery more terrible, by Turkish irregular forces let loose in revenge."
2. "But within ten days their revolt was suppressed, with a savagery more terrible, by Turkish irregular forces let loose in revenge. Killing in a single month no fewer than 12,0000 Christians."

Are they both from the same paragraph, or even page? Again, it would be helpful if I could see the actual page. Khoikhoi 02:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a scanner, but go to Amazon.com. Type in "The Ottoman Centuries"(you'll have to have an account), click on search irregular, click on page 509.

In Bulgaria a rebel leader, with visions of himself as a Slave Napoleon, had pledged his followers to terrorist methods. They turned savagely on the Moslem Turks, whom they started to massacre. But within ten days their revolt was suppressed, with a savagery more terrible, by Turkish irregular forces let loosse in revenge. They committed atrocities stigmatized by the British commissioner from Istanbul as "perhaps the most heinous crime of the present century". Burning innumerable villages to the ground, they spared neither age nor sex in an outbreak of indiscriminate massacre, killing in a single month no fewer than twelve thousand Christians. Their orgy of slaughter and arson and rape culminated in the mountain village of Batak. Here a thousand Christians found refuge in a church, to which the irregular troops set fire with rags soaked in petrol, burning all to death but a single old woman. In all, so it was reported, five thousand out of the seven thousand villagers of Batak perished at their hands.

That is where page 509 ends. Italic sentence is Nostradamus1's, bold is mine. This quote, "Killing in a single month no fewer than 12,0000 Christians." was removed by me. Kansas Bear (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not need to talk to Kinross. My question to you is why did you stop at that sentence. Add the entire paragraph then. I was providing the details of the events which you want to suppress by insisting on a the follow up sentence. This makes the following sentence invalid. You intentionally are altering the context to magnify you POV.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Kansas Bear (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nostradamus that the quote you added was already basically covered in the following paragraph. I added some additional information from Kinross, but perahps it could be turned into an actual sentence instead of a quote. Khoikhoi 03:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Good for Nostradamus. He has a nationalistic agenda. I'm simply trying to keep the article from devolving into nationalistic POV. Kansas Bear (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I want the article to be balanced as well, which is why I added the additional info about the village of Batak. Didn't you notice? Khoikhoi 04:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Let Nostradamus do as he wants. With "List of Turkic States..." and other ultra-nationalistic articles, he has an agenda and nothing will stand in the way of that agenda. I simply want the information to be backed by credible references without the ultra-nationalistic POV. But ANYONE that edits information that Nostradamus doesn't agree with is POV pushing, regardless if the information is the sentence directly after the quote he just gave. In no way is his "cherry-picking" of sentences chronological or indicative of how real sources are used.

If you don't believe it is chronological or indicative of how real sources are used, can you please clarify and bring it up on the talk page? Khoikhoi 08:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the paragraph from Kinross? Should I take ONE sentence from that paragraph and pass it off as what was said in that paragraph? This has happened on "List of Turkic States..." as well. Where information contained, usually a sentence before or after one he added, was conveniently "left out"[5]. Where upon he asks for sources/page numbers in an attempt to remove said information that clearly doesn't agree with his nationalistic views[6], yet the sentences were on both pages of both books of the references he supplied. That is distorting references. Kansas Bear (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention his prejudice against Bulgarians and Iranians;

I have been involved in the article List of Turkic states for the past several months. Despite my mediation request half a dozen or so Iranian and several Bulgarian users dominated the article shaping it to their POV. .--Nostradamus1 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Kansas Bear (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I will be asking one more time where in that source the three Bulgarian dynasties are said to be of 'partial Cuman origin. The sentence you added does not imply that. The rest of your argument above speaks for itself and needs no further elaboration about your motives. The only thing I want to remind you is that when you start accusing others with having ultra-nationalistic agendas you are entering the grey zones. One of these days they will constitute a personal attack. Knowing history does not make people ultra-nationalists. It is you in concert with some others who have been editing these articles and trying to find ways to undo my contributions by including such out-of-context quotations as it is exemplified in this particular case.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"As a consequence, groups of the Cumans and the Tatars settled and mingled with the local population in the various regions of the Balkans."

"To replace Ivailo, the Bulgarian bolyars chose Georgi I Terter, possibly a Cuman in ethnic origin." Kansas Bear (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird additions

Bonjour Kansas Bear! As I was leaving a msg on Khokhoi's talk page, I encountered a problem with someone editing the page at the same time... It was you. This is what I left on his page:

Several *sculpture* figures are being put in articles related to French historical personnages: princesse de Lamballe, Mme de Montespan, Mme de Maintenon. They do not belong there. Checking the contributors' IP address - all beginning 75.106.192. with last two numbers different - reveals a history of vandalism. Would you mind checking this? Thank you.

The IP addresses are 75.106.192.58 and 75.106.192.39. More may have been added since I last looked. Aurevoir! FW Frania W. (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re

Looks like it's already been taken care of. Khoikhoi 07:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Famille d'Orléans

i think you will find that the edits that i made to the children of the Régent de France and his wife, were made in order to repair the link to their grandmother Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate who was recently moved to her 'correct' name. as regards to their paternal grandfather, as a fils de france, he was styled as Philippe de France, duc d'Orléans his official name and highest ranking title. i will let you work that out for yourself. 86.164.92.185 (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

fils de france

it is not difficult to work out that a son of france (and a daughter) would have been styled X de France!!!!!!!! i fail to see why on many pages your edits regard this obssession of yours. its very dull AND unnecessary....please stop it 86.164.92.185 (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why you think your "writing" is superior to anyone's. Kansas Bear (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

did i say my writing was? 81.159.253.180 (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your juvenile statement, " your edits regard this obsession of yours. its very dull and unnecessary.". Would indicate otherwise. When left to your own devices, the reader would have thought Elizabeth Charlotte was married to "Monsieur" or "Fils de France"!! At the French court, her husband was known by the traditional honorific of Monsieur. None of your assertions have ever been followed by any factual sources, which is why your edits are haphazard and puerile. Kansas Bear (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

ahhh...in order to shut up up...i will now source my edits...but then again 'I fail to see why you think your "writing" is superior to anyone's also 86.167.207.8 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I find your response dull and unnecessary. Kansas Bear (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

a mature and predictable response.... 86.167.207.8 (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Which explains why you continue your puerile attacks. Kansas Bear (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

i do not give up 86.167.207.8 (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

???

can you not read...? 81.159.253.180 (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

End of summer

Like the French say: "c'est la rentrée" et j'ai l'impression qu'on est reparti pour un tour. Bon courage! Frania W. (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Frania. Kansas Bear (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Bulk of text

Hi, Kansas Bear! the edit you performed [7] regarding the bulk of text added by user user:90.192.126.127. The text needs to be discussed at the talk space before inclusion into the article. It looks like a copy-vio from another source. The incorporation of large text, without the cited references, is a red tag regarding the violation of wikipedia rules. Besides the text includes very controversial arguments (I plainlu claim wrong) regarding the issues already established in the wikipedia with sources, such as the claims voiced that Ataturk oppose the policies defined by Misak-ı Millî which was signed by the Ataturk himself. Thank your for your care and consideration. You should also look at the Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk's_leadership_of_the_independence_war#The_mandates_and_National_Pact regarding mandates and its link to Misak-ı Millî --Rateslines (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I usually try to keep the article from any vandalism or massive changes. Kansas Bear (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder

FYI, I'm going to be working on an alternate version of the Cyrus cylinder page which would limit all the "reviews" and subjective interpretations of the cylinder (negative or positive) to direct quotes fully attributed to their authors. I'll be making an attempt to replace the sections As a charter of human rights and As an instrument of royal propaganda with a Legacy section. It would be made up of two sub-sections called "proponents" and "critics", containing the various views on the cylinder as direct quotes, while leaving the rest of article to a factual description to give readers a neutral presentation of what the cylinder is, as opposed to what it represents or means -- free of spin or speculation. Feel free to contribute to the temporary page at User:Khoikhoi/Cyrus cylinder. Khoikhoi 00:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. Recognition of the Armenian Genocide

Hello Kansas Bear. I personally oppose Armenian genocide denial, therefore I am not the best admin to perform any administrative action against the disruptive user. Still, it is pretty obvious that Turkish user Runningfridgesrule is attempting to enforce Turkish POV into the article through weasel words. I have now watchlisted this article and will help revert any POV insertions from him. That should suffice to keep him under control. Yet, if more users join his side, which I doubt, this situation will require full page protection and dispute resolution. Regards, Húsönd 14:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Kansas Bear (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi what is your opinion on this:[8]. --Nepaheshgar 18:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That wiki-politics and frightened editors make me sick. This wasn't an issue, until I pointed out that Farrokh was a doctor in Persian linguistics!! Kansas Bear (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re

Hi, sorry for my late reply. Unfortunately I don't have access to those books. Do you know what they say and whether they support Nostradamus' edits? IMO saying "Turko-Chinese" for some of these dynasties is stretching it, most of the Turks in China became assimilated (excluding those in Xinjiang), so it's hard to tell how much Turkic ancestry these dynasties actually had (correct me if I'm wrong). Also, thanks for the links regarding the Cyrus cylinder. I'll check em out later. Khoikhoi 20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on his talk page. Khoikhoi 05:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Insults

Hi, Kansas Bear. I've given the IP a warning for that personal attack he left on your talk page. If he does it again, be sure to let me or another administrator know. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Kansas Bear (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 24.67.253 203, I've warned him for edit warring on Murad Gumen. Let me know if he continues edit warring, or if he violates WP:3RR. Additionally, have you considered posting at WP:ANI? Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it has already been posted. Thanks anyway. Kansas Bear (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Murad Gumen

Hi, I've repeatedly tried to get the Murad Gumen page protected, but for some reason they don't allow it. Do you have any idea what's going on here? E10ddie (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your kind comments Kansas Bear. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

You are most welcome. Sir. Kansas Bear (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am honoured. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Content Dispute

You might be interested in the discussion here: [9] --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Warning

As I was examining Hudavendigar's editing on Van, Turkey and Armenia–Turkey relations, I noticed that you had on many occasions reverted his edits. Please be aware that edit warring is not conducive to a productive article-building environment, and that it is a blockable offense. In the future, please stick to the mantras of WP:1RR and WP:BRD or request full page protection at WP:RFPP in cases of impending edit wars. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the penalty for removing referenced material from an article? Kansas Bear (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already blocked Hudavendigar for violating his editing restrictions. In the future, I ask that you refrain from edit warring unless you have a legitimate reason for doing so. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding now, there is no reason to revert anyone's edits, as in this one here[10], which is a continued effort to remove referenced material. Along with continued insults[11], which warrant no warning. Kansas Bear (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say you couldn't revert; I asked you not to edit war. Edit warring is when parties repeatedly revert each others' edits. It would be appropriate to revert this, since the editor provided an insufficient reason for blanking half the article. The current editing at Messianic Judaism would constitute edit warring, since SkyWriter and Jayjg have repeatedly reverted each other. It looks like these editors are now going to stop edit warring and start discussing on the article talk page, so I'll stay out of that matter for now. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your best approach is to continue instructing the user to stop reverting and start discussing. If these efforts prove futile, then you can ask for an administrator to intervene. If he continues, I'll issue a warning. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re. John Titor

Hello Kansas Bear and thank you for contacting me. I'm sorry that I did not give immediate attention to your request, but I have been terribly busy lately. I see that the anonymous user has been receiving warnings, I'll additionally warn him against the 3RR. If he makes another reversion please let me know. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 18:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Problem

FisherQueen already warned him for his overall poor behavior, and I added a {{3rr}}. I added that page to my watchlist. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide

I consider this edit a breach of WP:CIVIL and even if you do not accept that it is see meta:Don't be a dick#Calling someone a dick and consider if someone was to call you a "dickhead" (because the meta article does not mean don't be a private detective) whether you would find it easy to work constructively with them on this project? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

you should not change talk page contributions by other editors (see WP:TALK "As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section."), particularly if you are in dispute with them. It is much better to report such abuse to WP:ANI. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A simple mistake on my part, where I jumped to far back when I added my reply. Anything else? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your fact checking. Keep it up. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 21:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I need a sanity check. Does my source not support my assertion that Akcam has received financial support from diaspora Armenians? I merely said he has been accused of bias, not that he is. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

About Laveol

I don't know if you are from the balkans, and if you know what all stuff is about. But i can't watch Laveol's "Barnstar of National Merit" given to him for replacing every single word "macedonian" with 'bulgarian". You don't know what Macedonia suffers from her neighbours in every single moment. We haven't done nothing bad to them, but they use every moment of they're lifes to hurt us. I dont hate them. But they hate me. Only because I exist and my indentity did not die in so many cetnuries. I still don't know if you understand me, but i hope that some day the world will live us alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.162.4 (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't justify vandalizing Laveol's talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I's appreciate it if you didn't vandalize my page and created an account finally. Btw I didn't know you were "centuries old", is this so? Thanks for the revert, Kansas :) --Laveol ^T 09:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not vandalizinng. Vanadalizing is Laveol's "enormous contribution to Bulgaria based articles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.166.69 (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your actions are vandalism. If you have a problem with an editor, use the talk page in a constructive manner. Your actions simply label you as a vandal/troll, which will resolve nothing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Kansas Bear

Like your name!

Warrington (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have me at a disadvantage, sir. Do I know you? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. No. Just passing by. Have a nice day!

Warrington (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Génocide arménien

Kansas Bear: This article was published in the French newspaper Le Figaro on 17 December: http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2008/12/17/01003-20081217ARTFIG00043-les-excuses-d-intellectuels-turcs-aupres-des-armeniens-.php

It might interest you.

Joyeux Noël & bonne fin d'année!

Frania W. (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Joyeux Noel, Frania! Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour Teddy... Kansas Bear: Read today this 21 February 2009 article published in Le Figaro:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/lefigaromagazine/2009/02/21/01006-20090221ARTFIG00097--armenie-mon-amour-.php

Cordialement, FW Frania W. (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Valide Sultan

Please see Bezmiâlem. Mukadderat (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Which supports the Palmer reference. I've added the Ali Kemal Meram reference as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it supports; I added it myself :-). I don't like the idea of putting many information into lists, especially if the information is not sure, but let it be if you wish. Mukadderat (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

spread of Renaissance

Please read about renaissance in Hungary http://www.fondazione-delbianco.org/inglese/relaz00_01/mester.htm

And read about Hungary in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please give a reference, which will deter future deletions/edit wars. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about Hungarian inventions? were they significant? Hungary science section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Weren't they? Shouldn't historical information be referenced and accurate, regardless of nationality? Unfortunately, scientific history isn't my forte. I'm sure you can find references to back your assertions. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yusuf IV

You mentioned a source for the genealogy in your edit summary, but didn't cite it in the article. Would you mind adding the citation? Or if it's as given in your edit summary, I can add it. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

Thanks for the comment, but you've got the wrong person! I changed the stub templates on User:Kansas Bear/Leonine City, but I didn't deal with the coordinates - looks like you got them right by yourself :) BTW, that article looks ready to be transferred to article space. You think it's ready yet? Grutness...wha? 05:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why to delete all my edits?

The article is o.k. up to my latest addition. Even Kansan Bear corrected the missing information before this edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Resistance&oldid=269936650 But this revert is not only the latest but all my edits. --Atilim Borlu (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. You added massive amounts of information, that is clearly NOT relevant to the article. Such types of massive additions have to be discussed on the talk page BEFORE being added to the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Van Resistance

Well, if the information is sourced and conforms to policy, I see no reason why it shouldn't exist. Then again, I'm not familiar with the subject matter, so I may not be the best person to ask. The edit warring seems to have stopped for now, but I've put the article on my watchlist so I can keep an eye on it. Best, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So instead, if someone can find information regarding troop movements during WWI and find some reference for it, then it can be added to the Van Resistance article. What about the Armenian Genocide? Shouldn't this same information be added there as well?? The fact of the matter is, what has been added is a side issue that has NO direct relevance to the article. That information should be placed under Ottoman troop movements during WWI or Caucasian Front(WWI). --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Um

If you're going to use tools, please do read their output:

wikitools 3RR — redirects 3RR

This tool will track down up to 50 of the most recent contributions of a particular user on a particular article within the last 10 days, then output the data in a 3rr-friendly format.

If a particular editor is reverting to a specific version of the page (or something similar to it), specific its revision ID as well to generate diff links to that version as well.

IMPORTANT: DO NOT SUBMIT A REPORT BY COPYING THIS SCRIPT'S OUTPUT IN FULL. This script is only meant for helping reporters in their reporting (as opposed to constant copypasting). YOU MUST TRIM THE REPORT TO ONLY INCLUDE ACTUAL REVERTS OR YOUR REPORT WILL LIKELY BE REJECTED! Article: (e.g. "Some article") User: (e.g. "SomeDude") Add diffs to revision id: (e.g. "11565684" — optional) Link to diff of warning (recommended) HTML output? (optional)

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Spam in Institute of Turkish Studies

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Institute of Turkish Studies, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Institute of Turkish Studies is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Institute of Turkish Studies, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resisting sockpuppetry

Your name came up in a recent discussion. Please see User talk:Frania Wisniewska#Louise-Françoise de Bourbon. Please feel free to contribute comments there, or to help us edit the Bourbon and Orleans articles which are being repeatedly vandalized with the aid of sockpuppets. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea if it is our little buddy or a new one, but someone has begun doing the same as last year. He/she usually picks on one editor & reverses his work. Lately, my work has also been reversed. From the Bourbons, I have extended out to the Orléans family, then to the Condé & Conti, methodically trying to edit one after the other, but it is difficult because some little bug barges in, reverses & adds trivia insisting that it is more important than proven historical facts. By the time I go back & correct, hours have gone by & there is no time to take on another subject. Two articles get messed up a lot, which I do not bother touching: they are the last two on my list so I let them go for now. It is tiresome to see articles on French royalty written as Hollywood gossip magazines. In fact, real vandals are much easier to deal with, you just revert & they get blocked eventually.

On another subject: did you see the Figaro link I left a couple of weeks ago at you RE: Génocide arménien above on the stand taken by some Turkish intellectuals toward the Armenian genocide?

Thank you for your concern. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Frania, thank you very much for the Figaro link. I'll try to keep a better eye on the Bourbon/Orleans/Conde/Conti pages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bourbon family is a big load! It would take constant watching to keep up & edit. I am so busy elsewhere that there are days I cannot get involved. In fact, editing an article helps take a break from occupations in real life, but fighting *bugs & buds* is a pain in the neck. Wishing you a nice day. Frania W. (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Kansas Bear: Please go to Gaston d'Orléans talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaston,_Duke_of_Orl%C3%A9ans, where I left a msg after another mass revert by our little buddy. Frania W. (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mount_Ararat

Some user is vandalizing the Mount Ararat page, deleting entire sections that were there from the beginnings of the page, related to Armenians and images of Ararat from Yerevan etc, and removing the words Armenian Genocide wherever he finds them. Please keep a watch also of this page. Thank you. He is also close to getting 3RR by his vandalism. 76.237.10.140 (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A similar vandalism is going on in Mitanni page, where we provided more than a handful of cited academic sources, that are regarded as scholarly sources, and supported by a user like you, please check the Talk:Mitanni page. This other user appears to be an admin and agrees with me about the "Armeno-Aryan" origins of Mitanni. 76.237.10.140 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Where we may be in disagreement

Kansas Bear: To much of my regret, there is a subject on which we may disagree: the name of Gaston d'Orléans. In France, he is always referred to as such and, when looking him up in a French dictionary, either Larousse or Petit Robert, one has to go at *Orléans*, where he is found the third one down after Louis, duc d'Orléans (1372-1407) and Charles d'Orléans (1391-1465), as the ducs d'Orléans are listed in chronological order.

However, our dear Gaston is Gaston de France, duc d'Orléans. The only two ducs d'Orléans who were *de France* at birth are him, Gaston de France, duc d'Orléans (L.XIII's brother) & his nephew, Philippe de France (Louis XIV's brother), who started the Orléans branch of the House of Bourbon. Louis XIV's surname is also *de France* as are the surnames for all the kings to follow him, ending with Charles X - the last king, Louis-Philippe, king of the French being Louis-Philippe d'Orléans.

Documents at the Archives nationales, have Gaston as Gaston de France, duc d'Orléans. The following should fall on page 786, a document concerning him, but there are more if you scroll up & down. (Bourbon is highlighted because I was looking for him under Gaston de Bourbon, which, theoretically speaking, should have been his last name as his father, Henri IV, was Henri de Bourbon. (ah, ces Frenchies!)

http://books.google.com/books?id=_hBD_QlmorIC&pg=PA786&lpg=PA786&dq=Gaston+de+Bourbon&source=bl&ots=AYUuhWjt9K&sig=CBsDzJnIffzCpKo5d1zjDOpRfv0&hl=en&ei=-zezSYPUM4qhtwfOl_TEBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

This being done in good humor, I sincerely hope it will not ring the end of our friendly cooperation! Cordialement vôtre, Frania W. (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Have I misread what you wrote at Gaston's talk page? It seems to me that you were saying that his name is not Gaston de France. If we are not in disagreement, then all's well! Frania W. (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That was his name. I was referring to the way it was continually used in the edit here[12]. Do you think the current version of Gaston d'Orleans is alright? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh...my... God !!! That's what you were referring to !!! Then forget what I wrote. I get filled with TNT when I see 104's contributions. Have not read the whole version yet, after you reverted; was busy on other subjects. à bientôt! FW Frania W. (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Just reread the article, and it looks fine.

Not a problem, Frania. I'm glad you're around to keep me on my toes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what kind of entertainment the new week brings; in the meantime, must get back to the real world. Bonne semaine! Frania W. (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Mehmed Talat "mediation"

K.B., I think you should stop making further contributions to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Mehmed_Talat page. You are just wasting your time and effort there, as well as giving breathing-space to an editor whose sole aim is to deny the Armenian Genocide. Meowy 22:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I just abhor, historically ignorant individuals. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Armenians

This IP user "82.12.123.187", keeps changing the Armenians 8 million number to 10 million. Please revert his vandalisms, Thanks. 75.51.174.249 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

All I can suggest is that you find a current and viable reference that states there are 8 million Armenians. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, actually, according to all the sources available, there are an estimated 10 Million (Some 9 Million, but NONE 8 million) Armenians worldwide. Considering I have plenty of reliable sources [13] (Here's an example), does that not make me correct? (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your list of userspace vandals

I noticed that you listed an IP and User:Ibrahim4048 as vandals of "your page." I looked at the history of your userpage so that I could warn Ibrahim, but I could not find any edits by him. Could you just explain to me, please, why he is included in the list? Tealwisp (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

IF Ibrahim4048 can add the word "alleged" to an article and give NO reliable source(s) for this edit, then any UNWANTED rant by ANY individual on my talk page can and will be labeled as vandalism. Simply put, if that individual can change an article due to his or her personal opinion, then my intrepretation of what is posted on my talk page will receive the same treatment. Any questions? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering the lack of courtesy and civility by this individual towards me and yourself, one would think that you would have something more productive to do with your time. Continued nationalistic rants, threats, and personal insults, by anyone else would have resulted in a permanent ban. If YOU have a problem with what I put on my page, then I encourage you to notify an ADMIN about my activities. In the meantime, take a long hard look and my contributions which range from French royal genealogy to single malt scotch and weigh that against Ibrahim4048's single purpose account. No matter the recourse I'll continue to back up historical facts with references regardless of threats from nationalistic twits or banishments. As my friend Frania says, "Bonne semaine"! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant no offense, I was just curious, as I thought the list of vandals was for your Userpage. Also, just so you know, he is providing sources. And, by the way, try to avoid calling any edit vandalism unless it is blatantly vandalism. Editors are far more amicable when everyone assumes good faith. Tealwisp (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So denialists are now regarded as third party sources?? Interesting. Since Lewy contradicted Ibrahim4048's own moronic statement that Armenians were not forcible relocated in Constantinople or Smyrna!! Given time, it will be interesting to see if this "Middle East Forum" is proven to be a reputable source. The only thing that has happened here is Ibrahim4048 has set a dangerous presidence by being allowed to add in anything from a dubious site. Don't worry, I have MANY sources that speak quite candidly about Talat Pasha, and since all that is needed is some dubious webpage as a reference, the sky is the limit. :-) --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Hucklbarry

Are you aware of the new user Huckelbarry has adopted an almost identical copy of your userpage? It gives the impression that either you two are the same person or that User:Huckelbarry wishes to have a ready made identity. Do you know this editor? Aramgar (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of this user. Most likely an angry Turkish nationalist. Have you check his/her contributions? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging from this person's contributions, I'd go with angry Turkish nationalist. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspected that it wasn't you. I think I have delt with this user before as an ip, a number of ips actually. Perhaps you should introduce yourself to him since you have so much in common. :) Regards, Aramgar (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, we can share stories about Kansas!! LOL --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

really sorry, i really liked your profile. aramgar; yes im a copier, but what a shame are you. do u want to follow me to my home you rat--Huckelbarry (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Just refrain from the name-calling. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tealwisp

If you have got an opinion about Tealwisp's mediation activites on the Talat article, please present it here. here. Meowy 20:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

English Tower/Monument Tower

Hi,

I noticed you'd changed the edit of an IP editor on Malvinas Day. The tower, a gift from the UK on the occasion of the Centenary celebrations of Argentine independence, was originally know as the English Tower. After the Argentine defeat in the Falklands War, the Government changed the official name to the monument tower (though the locals still call it the English Tower). You might like to revert your change? Justin talk 10:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It had appeared to be vandalism. Did I revert it back to another vandalized form?? If it's terribly incorrect feel free to change it. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case it wasn't vandalism, it was correct. I thought I'd let you know before reverting to avoid any misunderstandings over vandalism. Now worries, I'll do it now. Justin talk 15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction of Crimes against humanity

Hello, I have seen that you recently reverted my edit regarding when Crimes against humanity were first introduced. However, I'd like to challenge your view of when this was first introduced and would like to point out this source with regards to Leopold's regime in the Congo http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/king-leopold-ii-congo

I'd like to highlight these bits of the text especially "Virtually no information about the true nature of King Leopold's Congo reached the outside world until the arrival there, in 1890, of an enterprising visitor named George Washington Williams." ... "In one of them, a letter to the U.S. Secretary of State, he used a phrase that was not commonly heard again until the Nuremberg trials more than fifty years later. Leopold II, Williams declared, was guilty of "crimes against humanity."

This also took part in international relations as Leopold felt the need to defend himself against other nations such as the UK who had accused him of committing crimes against humanity in around 1907.

Although I suspect the first usage of the term may even go back to the Boer Wars, I'm pretty sure that the massacres in the Congo had introduced the term before the year 1915.

Kind regards.Joebobby1985 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

From the link you've given, it doesn't appear to be able to pass Wikipedia Verifiability or Reliable Sources. Does one of the listed sources from that link specifically mention Crimes against humanity in International Relations? I don't have anything against a sourced re-write(mentioning King Leopold), but a complete deletion is rather abrupt. I usual have to revert Armenian related issues from Turkish editors deletions. So my revertion was based on the reference supporting that part of the article. It in no way was the article meant to disprove the information you have presented. I appreciate the level-headed message and look forward to working with you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I understand your concerns and would like to provide a clearer source in this sense. (http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/analysis/details.php?content=1998-12-09&page=1&menupage=) This specifically states when the first atrocity of "Crimes against humanity in positive international law" was recognised and when the term was used. It gives its first example as the events in the Congo Free State. In the first source I mentioned in our discussion it's possible to come across this (Hochschild, Adam (1998). King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror and Heroism in Colonial Africa. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.) the author who wrote the official letter to the U.S. Secretary of State.

It's also worth noting that Leopold was already dealing with accusations. While sadly, I don't have any access to the more restricted areas of those websites right now, I'd like to show you this (http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/specials/leopold.html) where it's evident that Leopold was in a tough situation where he had to deal with charges from all over the world. Especially against the accusations of the UK in which he gaves a response close to "but you killed more than I did".

As you mentioned a complete deletion is rather abrupt in all fairness. Would the sources I just provided be plausible for a re-write?

Kind regards.Joebobby1985 (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I ereased your pages in order to get an answer for erasing the Anti-Turkism tags

I ereased your pages in order to get an answer for erasing the Anti-Turkism tags —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saguamundi (talk • contribs) 14:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mods take note, this is a confession of vandalism on an editor's talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr Bear, do you want to put this category up for deletion or shall I? --Folantin (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, call me KB. You can have the honor of placing that category for deletion. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Should be here now if I've got it right[14]. (Phew, I hate nominating for XfD!). --Folantin (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, sir! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummayad Conquest of Hispania

Thanks. I just replied on the article's talk page.

I'll consider how to add mention of Charlemagne's campaign, or go ahead and add it, if you want. I understand what you mean about its probably meriting inclusion. SamEV (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it this weekend. It just seemed, to me, rather abrupt to mention Charles Martel. I find your re-write quite constructive. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's not abrupt, KB. And that small mention of the Gaul/France campaign is very natural, because the whole thing flowed naturally: The Muslims invaded Hispania from the south and just kept going northwards. They got to the Pyrenees and crossed them. Tariq asked his master Musa for instructions, and boasted – not entirely without merit, considering the state of Christendom at the time (the "Dark Ages", as you know) – that he could deliver Denmark, if asked. SamEV (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrew L Simon

This turns out to be self-published, see [15]. Not, I'm afraid, a reliable source. Sorry about that. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Feigl

I suspect that this brand new spa is a sock of User:Saguamundi.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Troyes

Kansas Bear: Discussion concerning Treaty of Troyes & related subjects has been going on lately at GoodDay (talk) talk page. If you want to take part, why don't you bring there the pertinent comment you left on my talk page earlier in the day? Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do, Frania. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kansas Bear. Your intervention should put the matter to rest. Frania W. (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been waiting for a response to the 3 statements I made concerning the Treaty of Troyes. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how the regency of Henry VI was "effective" in France when I've shown facts to the contrary[16]. You have your work cut out for you.

As you made the elementry mistake of calling it a treaty it was in fact a congrass...

Treaty of Arras, --

* Louise Creighton, A First History of France, p122.

* Charles William Chadwick Oman, The History of England, from the Accession of Richard II to the Death of Richard III (1377-1485), p304.

* John Foster Kirk, Charles, History of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, p36.

* Edward Augustus Freeman, General Sketch of European History, p232.

* David Jayne Hill, A history of diplomacy in the international development of Europe, p85.

It appears you should spend your time doing more research and less statements of elementary mistakes, mein freund. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Treaty and congrass of Arras are different not the same thing.-- Henry V

And exactly where did I state they were the same?

The Treaty of Arras(1435) was "effective" for the English?

Was the loss of the Duke of Burgundy "effective" for the English?

As for Henry V and Henry VI, since the Treaty of Troyes does not mention Henry V's claim through Edward III, then the clauses/obligations of the treaty have replaced it(since Henry V did agree to it).

Therefore, as Curry states; A claim to kingship was valid only if territory could be secured.

Which doesn't even begin to cover Henry VI's violation of the clause that forbids any negotiation with Charles VII![17] --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Huns article

Hi, thanks for removing those sources. Someone snuck those back in there while I wasn't watching, I see. See Talk:Huns#They_possibly_had_a_Turkic_or_a_Xiongnu_core_of_aristocracy for more about those sources. (Pictish sourcebook?!) --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. You are most welcome! --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mehmed V

in your reversions of Mehmed V you deleted a large chunk for genealogy - the content of which was the reasons for the other persons revert to an older version prior to your changes. Agathoclea (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I re-added the genealogy. This doesn't explain Zibi's removal of the historically accurate name of Constantinople. If Zibi has a problem, have him/her read up on the Turkish Postal Law of 1930. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Because neither in Turkey's main page is written for the Armenian genocide, nor in Serbia's main page is written for Srebrenica massacre, nor in the USA's main page is written for their atrocities over civilians in Vietnam so I don't see why that thing should be mentioned in Bulgaria's main page. --Gligan (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't recognize the flight of ethnic Turks from Bulgaria as an atrocity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Safavids

Dear Kansas Bear. I am here not for accusation or something like that. i just want to discover the facts, as much as possible. Alam Ara says Ismaill II and Parikhan Khanum were of Circassian mothers (Circassian means generally mountaineous Caucasiuan and not necessarily CCircassian in modern way). I am fully aware that heydar Ali Mirza was of georgian mother. Yet I have heard and read it in a Persian source that Shah Abbas grandmother was Georgian. Koridze says this too. In addition many persian sources tell us that Shah Abbas spoke Georgian fluently. This means that he was raised with Georgian language. He relied on Georgian generals and administrators which also points to Georgian ethnic favoritism. All and all I do honestly believe in the Georgian roots of Shah Abbas and yet Koridze says this too. I do not know why western sources should get preferrence over the Persian or Georgian ones?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can only interpret the facts as they are written.

According to Allen, "In 1548, Shah Tahmasp I married a daughter of Otar Shalikashvili..",(1)-- A History of the Georgian People, p152. Also, it states, "The special favourite of the passe' paladin in his later years, Shalikashvili's daughter borne a son to Tahmasp."(2) Therefore, any son would have been born 1548 or later.

• (1).Wakhushti, Hist. de Samtzkhe, in Brosset. H. de la G., II, i, 217.
  
• (2).Wakhushti, Hist. de Kartli, in Brosset, H. de la G., II, i, 37.

Savory, Roger, Iran Under the Safavids, (Cambridge University Press, 2007), 68.

Juan de Persia, Don Juan of Persia, (Routledge, 2004), 129.

From these facts, I find that Juan, Savory, and especially Allen have done extensive research into this area. All mention dates and facts that correspond to when Shalikashvili's daughter married Tahmasp.

Also, The Central Islamic Lands from Pre-Islamic Times to the First World War., p409, by P.M. Holt, states , ".....only two were born of a Turcoman mother, Ismail and Mohammed Khodabanda".

From The Persians, p172, by Gene Ralph Garthwaite, states, "The two with Qizilbash mothers were Muhammed Khudabandah and Ismail.." and "...Haydar whose mother was Georgian."

From the all the sources I could find that mention Tahmasp, Abbas, Khodabanda, Ismail, and Haydar, I've yet to find any that even hint that Khodabanda's mother was Georgian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As Folantin is insulting me and is unable to conduct a civilized discussion I do not answer him anymore. Folantin is unable to understand that a Mazandarani can be Georgian too and in Iran there are Seyyed Georgians too. These things are not controdictory if one knows the Safavid history. But any way. Thanks for your help. I am going to see your sources (though it is difficult in this country to get access to them). It is not that I do not truust you. I want to check them against the primary sources of that time in order to solve some mysteries.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the references I've listed can be found on google books[18]. Surely you are allowed access to google books! Also another reference I've found but could not access is; La Participation de Femmes de la Famille Royale a l'Exercice du Pouvoir en Iran Safavide au XVIe Siecle, Studia Iranica, 23(2), 1994, by M.Szuppe. As for Folantin, I've found him to be a quality editor. I understand his irritation, considering I just finished dealing with an individual that refused to recognize facts concerning Henry VI of England and the lack of French recognition. So we all have our "pet peeves". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope I can find those books in google books and I hope I can read the relevant pages. I have also access to secondary Persian sources one of which has a similar title as the Italian one. About Folantin: I honestly do not think that his irritation comes because of another editor. He always reacts agressively If I say that his English secondary sources contradict my 17th and 18th century Persian sources (and in this case the Georgian source) it is his inabaility to tolerate other people's arguments and sources and falls instead in yelling and badmouthing people, which is not very productive in wikipedia.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

He's already had this kind of thing explained to him ad nauseam. I had five reliable sources showing Shah Abbas' mother was Khayr al-Nisa Begum, a Mazandarani Iranian (including Savory, Newman and The Cambridge History of Iran). Plus, he should have worked out Wikipedia's policies on reliability by now, notably our no original research policy, showing why we don't synthesise primary sources from the period ourselves, as well as use English sources unless you have a very good reason. But nothing is as important as putting Abbas in the category "Iranian Georgians". --Folantin (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism RE articles on French royalty

Bonjour Kansas Bear: Articles on Louis XIV, Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette seem to be the most hit by vandalism. In fact, if you scroll down the list of edits for the past few months, there are more vandal hits & reverts than actual positive participation. Sometimes, instead of reverting, a good soul *corrects* what the vandal inserted, missing deletions & changes in dates etc, this resulting in an article filled with vandal-leftovers until someone reads it all over again & catches the stupidities. Don't you think that these articles should be semi-protected & do you know to whose attention we should bring it ? Cordialement ! Frania W. (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree Frania. Nishkid[19], Juliancolton[20], or J.Delanoy[21] would probably help. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

As soon as I have a few extra minutes (busy in real world right now), I shall leave the msg I left to you to Nish, Colton & Delanoy. Merci beaucoup! Frania W. (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ours du Kansas, Merci for looking into it. I guess we just have to keep watching ces méchants vandales. Cordialement, FW

Frania W. (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for you info on Jeanne of France. It was a special contributer who changed the date, I sent them a message a while back but never replied to me. Do you know if Louisa of Burgundyever existed and if so, what kind of a life she had.--David (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the late response, I was in Wichita digging through a library! So far, Louisa of Burgundy does not show up here[22] or here[23]. I find no mention of a Louisa of Burgundy in a quick search of googlebooks[24]. Also her supposed marriage to Jean II de Mailly; in reality shows him married to a Catherine de Mailly[25],[26], further research shows a listing of Jean de Mailly's[27] none of which are married to any Louisas!

• According to Some lies and errors of history, by Parsons, p163, "Louis XI had no mistress but France...."

It would appear I've found the root of this nonsense here[28]. The same person on wikipedia [Dragoon1988] has started numerous pages of fake individuals to enhance someone's genealogy. We eventually end up with a "supposed" son called Ferry, who "supposedly" marries Louise de Montmorency(1496-1547). But in the real world, Louis de Montmorency marries a Ferry de Mailly[29],[30], whose real parents are Adrien de Mailly, Seigneur de Conti and Jeanne de Glymes[31],[32].

So in the end. Louisa, her station of mistress to Louis XI, and her progeny are all fictitious. That was fun. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you search Louis XI on Leo Van de Pas' page you will see Louis XI did have mistresses[33], but none of them named Louisa of Burgundy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted these articles as hoaxes. Good find, Kansas Bear. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting those articles. I was just checking on a lead that User:Daaviiid had asked about. Once those individuals didn't show up on either genealogical site, I was curious if they existed at all. Thanks again, Nishkid! --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Louisa of Burgundy wasn't a mistress of Louis XI it was apparently her daughter. John the Fearless did have many illegitimate kids, one of them may have been called Louisa but didn't live the supposed life--David (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What have you found? This site[34] and here[35], both list Louis XI with only two mistresses, neither of which have mothers named Louisa. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Other wikipedia's like the french and polish have a list of his legitimate and illegitimate children. Other languages do as well. I haven't looked at the names for a while though--David (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How about Huguette de Jacquelin and Madam Gigou[36], which according to said book, he had a son with Huguette, Duke de Berry. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the Europäische Stammtafeln have any information on Louis XI's illegitimite children? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued attacks

Now you have to resort to lying.

Basicly now your unsourced statements are refuted

EVERYTHING I posted was sourced, if you can't handle that, go cry somewhere. Your ignorance of history has been shown time and again. You ignore half of everything written(which has been show as well) when it doesn't suit your purpose. Here is your "way" of interpreting history.....

'reflect on the imaginative

If you don't like facts, you should move on to the fiction section. We are done here. As usual you can't argue facts you attack the person. You make up fantastical claims of "unsourced statements" as your argument since you really don't have an argument.

Any further posts from you WILL be reported to an Admin as vandalism, since you can't keep from insulting someone with documented facts. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Faveur accordée avec plaisir

Louis XI is blamed for having brought distress to his subjects. This matter needs to be examined. It must be admitted that he imposed them more than his predecessors did*. The question is for what use. This Prince was always stranger to ostentation; he even at times showed such a particular economy as not to be feigned† (FW’s note: he was said to be a miser). His great expense was for the hunt, of which he was jealous. His severity in this regard contributed to some extent to alienate the Nobles, making it known at the time that it was more dangerous to kill a stag than a man.

His other pleasures must not have cost him much. Since his accession to the throne, he had no acknowledged Mistress. Were it some truth to the claim that he, on occasions, had women brought to him, such as Huguette de Jacquelin, la Passefilon, Jeanne Baillette, Perrette de Châlons & others; fleeting tastes in a Prince are less dangerous for a State than if he himself be subjugated by a Mistress. Louis was never governed by Women, as such they were not the object of his expenses; but he spent in devotion prodigious sums at a time when his Household was not paid well, & that the countryside was deserted through the constraints of the Tax Officers (Officiers des Tailles).

* The “tailles” were at 1,800,000 livres under Charles VII & L.XI raised them to 3,700,000.

† In his Household account, there is an article of 15 sols for two new sleeves.

(transl. FW)

Cordialement,

Frania W. (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Frania! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

corrected a couple of mistakes. FW/Frania W. (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mustafa Çelebi

Concerning your comment on the talk page of Beyazıt I on 28 Dec; an article about Mustafa Çelebi, also called Düzmece (translated as fake, forged, made up or imposter ) now exists in Wikipedia. Actually he was Beyazid's son. But his brother (later nephew) claimed that he was fake to shadow his claim. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Beta Gaga

This editor doesn't seem to understand WP:NOR rule, he's changing text which is contradictory to his Ph. D. Thesis, and he cites no references: [37], [38]. Kavas (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Working on it

I gave him a couple of 3RR warnings, reverted him a couple of times also, plus another warning. Just in case watch out yourself for 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

about the article Saladin

I want to add that small changes to the article Saladin in connection to the re-added section about Rawadids who were the Kurdicized Arab tribe Azd but I can. I want to ask you if it is possible to help me to add this reference there. Thanks in advance.

UponlimitKansas (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not associate with sockpuppets or meatpuppets. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Mango

Hello, I'm having some trouble on the Andrew Mango article with some anonymous IP's trying to change the sourced name of Constantinople (after they also tried to adjust the source it's self) and I noticed you had also had the same problem there. I'm not really sure what to do next now, as this seems like it'll go on forever, so I was wondering if you have any idea's on how to proceed. Thank you and regards.--English Bobby (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Try making them engage on the talk page, else notify an Admin. I tagged the article for original research after User:BratwurstLady added "as it had been called Istanbul for centuries" to the quote from Britannica[39]. Also, Nedim Ardoga and I had a discussion and decided on having "Istanbul" linked and Constantinople in parentheses with the references included. Example; Istanbul(Constantinople)< ref>........</ ref> --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Stephania

Hello! No, the reference seems good, but it was only used to certify that the battle was a "Turkish victory" in the article. As I don't know what the article referenced was actually about (it may have been a purely by-the-way reference to the battle for all I know), and as the other two sources I used pretty much cover the "Turkish victory" bit, I decided to leave it out. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Kansas Bear. Thank you very much for reverting the vandal on my talk. It is nice to talk to you after such a long time. How are you? I hope everything is ok. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, Dr. K. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Mango

Hello, I'm having some trouble on the Andrew Mango article with some anonymous IP's trying to change the sourced name of Constantinople (after they also tried to adjust the source it's self) and I noticed you had also had the same problem there. I'm not really sure what to do next now, as this seems like it'll go on forever, so I was wondering if you have any idea's on how to proceed. Thank you and regards.--English Bobby (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Try making them engage on the talk page, else notify an Admin. I tagged the article for original research after User:BratwurstLady added "as it had been called Istanbul for centuries" to the quote from Britannica[40]. Also, Nedim Ardoga and I had a discussion and decided on having "Istanbul" linked and Constantinople in parentheses with the references included. Example; Istanbul(Constantinople)< ref>........</ ref> --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Stephania

Hello! No, the reference seems good, but it was only used to certify that the battle was a "Turkish victory" in the article. As I don't know what the article referenced was actually about (it may have been a purely by-the-way reference to the battle for all I know), and as the other two sources I used pretty much cover the "Turkish victory" bit, I decided to leave it out. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Kansas Bear. Thank you very much for reverting the vandal on my talk. It is nice to talk to you after such a long time. How are you? I hope everything is ok. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, Dr. K. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Henry IV of France page reference

You added a footnote on 28 August 2009 for the following text in the article Henry IV of France: "Salic law disinherited the king's sisters and all others who could claim descent by the distaff line. However, since Henry of Navarre was a Huguenot, this set off the War of the Three Henries phase of the French Wars of Religion. The third Henry, Duke Henry of Guise, pushed for complete suppression of the Huguenots, and had much support among Catholic loyalists. This set off a series of campaigns and counter-campaigns culminating in the battle of Coutras." The footnote cites Baird, vol. 1, p. 431, but I did not find anything relevant on this page in an online copy of the book to the subject being discussed at this point in the article. Is the page reference incorrect or could the linked online copy of Baird somehow be incorrectly paginated? Thanks for help. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am curious as to what you are comparing. The Project Gutenberg is not published by Charles Scribner in 1886, but by Hodder and Stoughton in 1880. The google books link both lead to Volume 2 of Baird's book. So are you comparing the correct versions and volumes? And yes, I do own both volumes by Baird, published by Charles Scribner in 1886, if you were curious. It would appear that your Gutenberg link is not the same, therefore will not have the same information on page 431. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately Google Books only has volume two (in two copies, which I hope was clearly indicated). The different date and publisher for the Gutenberg copies would certainly explain why the page is different. I should have thought to check that, but I also tried searching that copy of vol. 1 for "salic law" and "coutras" but did not turn up much. Is there some other text I could search for to find the correct passage? (My aim was to try to link the footnote to the page in the online copy. Obviously this is going to be more difficult than I initially thought!) --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Vol. 2 was easy, and the book is interesting with lots of detail, so I think the links are nice to have. Fortunately there are only two citations to volume 1, so maybe it will not be so difficult after all, assuming the 1880 edition has the same passages. Thanks for helping! --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies! I realize today, after a good night's sleep, that my mistake was even worse than you thought. The Gutenberg volumes are an entirely different title. No wonder the searches wouldn't turn up anything. I have so far been unable to locate volume 1 online, so there does not appear to be anything to link to. Sorry for the errors. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for clearing up some Turkish POV IP stuff (e.g. Huns, Karamanlılar, etc). I can't stand it when the bias of an edit makes you go: "And here we have a (enter nationality / political position), thanks a lot for a load of bollocking." I saw you had already caught most of it.

Sorry KansasBear, I am very busy for the moment. Please approach another administrator. Contact me again from May. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Indebted

Once more. It is nice to know that users like you are around. Many thanks Kansas Bear. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem Dr.K. I understand what it is like to have a fan club. Some of us on wikipedia are truly blessed! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

For sure, there is no shortage of them. Unfortunately they are misinformed. They use PAs as an editing tool. Right then and there you know that their facts are based on PAs instead of citations. Such approach doesn't make for a very good version of an encyclopedia. Thanks again Kansas Bear. It's good to know you are around. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Re : Alpha Beta Gaga

It means that no other sockpuppet accounts have been detected, which have been created for future disruption but not in active use ("sleeping"). - Regards, Mailer Diablo 03:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your note

Accoriding to Jean-Paul Roux and Lev Gumilev, Kipchaks and Kumans (as well as Polvest) were the same people (In Wikipedia the articles have not been merged). They were living at the east of Tarim River around 850s. For reasons unknown they moved to Desht-i-Kipchak (West Siberia and East Europa) . Klyashtorny identifies them with Kimek tribe and in turn Sirs of the earlier ages. On the other hand, Volga Tatars are believed to be descendants Khanate of Kazan a part of Golden Horde. But I read articles which also relates them to Volga Bulgars and Volga Bulgars are usually related to Tulo (probably Tiele people) tribes under the Western Turkic Khaganate in the 7th century. (Tulo consisted 5 tribes of the Onok conferederation.) But while the language of Chuvash people is similar to those of Tulo, Volga Tatars speak the North western branch of Turkic which makes Kipchak origin theory more plausible. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nedim. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

>> I dont think they were the same people, for the reason that apperently the Kumans said themselves that they were diferent and that they preffered the name Kuman not Kipchak, if they were different then why did they have a clear seperate land to live (the western section of the confederation), and they had a seperate name -Kuman (if they were the same why would they just not call themselves Kipchak, but instead used the name Kuman. Also, the author of the book: Cumans and Tatars also differentiates between Cumans and Kipchaks, stating that they were different peoples with different origins who came together to form a confederation. Also, it was just the Kumans that migrated to Hungary and then to Bulgaria after Mongols defeated them (they came under the name Kuman, not Kipchak). Also when they formed Wallachia and Basarabia - again they were under the name Kuman, not Kipchak - All these clues and evidence point to a different origin, but their cultures were still very similar, and their language was either the same or very close. Also the codex: Codex Cumanicus is under the name Cuman, not Kipchak, and if Im not mistaken it was done to familiarize the Genoan and other European traders in Crimea and surrounding areas to the people there to help with trade - an area where there was also Kipchaks, not just Kumans - if they were the same people then it might as well have been Called Codex Kipchak (which would then include both Cumans and Kipchaks, but isnt the case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.50.83 (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OR

You might want to post to WP:NOR, I am very sorry but I just don't have the time to work in an area I don't know. Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Family Tree

Hello Kansas

Why is Ataturk shown in this Ottoman family tree? He is in no way related and needs to be removed. ...

I agree with you,I wan't removed it...But can't please help me...Thanky.

Dilek2 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ayyubid dynasty

Hey,

Thanks for the message re: the above page. I may not receive any future reply as I am on a public computer portal.

Regarding your message, notwithstanding the citation that you provided, there still was no entity called the 'Ayyubid empire' at the time. This is a subsequent term used for historical convenience. The state was referred to at the time as a 'sultanate', which is why this is the more appropriate term.

Also, I note that you made a complete reversion, as opposed to only reverting 'sultanate' to 'empire'. Perhaps you can state on the article's Talk page what reason you have to reverting the other edits, which are all entirely accurate and superior to the previous text, as no reason was given in the edit summary.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.108.10 (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you have to explain why you believe your edit is "superior" on the talk page. Not I. The majority of the edit appeared, to me, to be unnecessary and arbitrary. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

An entirely fruitless reply. I will restore the edits. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.108.10 (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. As per Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss. Which means, since you have been reverted by two different editors, it would be wise to use the talk page. In your case, you have now engaged in edit-warring to push your POV(by removing the word "empire"), which was clearly shown to be in use by a published source[41] and other questionable changes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Dadarsi

Hello, I see that there is another revert war at Dadarsi. You use one source, the IP uses another. What is your objection to [42] as a source? Regards.--Moosh88 (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Besides being unpublished and a website? Compared to two university sources(Oxford and Cambridge)?? Yes, why deal in fact when some unpublished website(which lists no sources for what is written) tells you what you want to "hear"? Better to simply label it "Iranian POV" and remain ignorant of history per university sources(WP:reliable sources). Better yet, have your sockpuppet buddy just continue to remove unpalatable university sources and not even darken the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh and being called an "Iranian POV pusher" is an insult. Perhaps you should read battleground before you start labeling other editors. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are so interested in websites, what is wrong with this site? http://www.iranica.com/articles/orontes , "A Bactrian, son of Artasouras/Artasyras (OGI no. 264. 4f.), satrap of Armenia under Artaxerxes II Mnemon (Xenophon, Anabasis 3.5.17; Pompeius Trogus, prolog. 10), who in 401 B.C.E. had given him his daughter Rhodogoune in marriage (Xenophon, Anabasis 2.4.8; 3.4.13; Plutarch, Artox. 27.7; OGI no. 391–2) and so obliged him to the royal house. In two inscriptions of king Antiochus I of Commagene (ca. 69–34 B.C.E.), to be found on his monument at Nemrut dağı (OGI no. 391–2), Orontes, called Aroandes (son of Artasouras and husband of Artaxerxes’s daughter Rhodogoune), is reckoned, among others, as an ancestor of the “Orontids” ruling over Commagene, who traced back their family to the great Achaemenid kings. According to Plutarch (Arat. 3.5) he resembled Alcmaeon, the son of Amphiaraus, in appearance."

If you are going to act condescending and hysterical then I see no reason to carry a dialogue with you. I hope this is not the case though as I am assuming you are trying to make wikipedia a more reliable source for users. Are university sources the end all and be all for you? I admit they carry weight with them as a source but we should not dismiss websites so easily, otherwise 98% of wikipedia should be deleted or re written so as to conform to unversity standards.

Nothing is wrong with the site in and of itself. What is wrong is to present only one side of the coin. You are free to use that site to show proof for the theory that Orontes may have been Persian. There are sources that state otherwise. Why not include both sides? I look forward to a civil response from you, cheers!--Moosh88 (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the part about how the website is unpublished and has no source. Last I checked sources had to be published as per Wikipedia:Reliable Sources."Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered." Also Wikipedia:Verifiability. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. All material added to articles must be attributable to a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and one appropriate for the information in question." If you can find a published source stating Dadarsis was Armenian, you can add it. As long as you leave "Persian" and the relevant sources. But something tells me some "anon IP" will remove "Persian" and the cooresponding sources before long.

I honestly do not care whether Dadarsis was Armenian, Persian or Oklahoman. However, I have seen numerous anon IPs making many unexplained changes, removing referenced (apparently) unpalatable information and edit-warring to maintain a certain POV. All of this done without any discussion(see Orontid dynasty). And once the lock down on the Orontid dynasty article expires, will you stand idlely by while Phoenicians8 and his anon IPs edit war to remove what was discussed and added by consensus[43]? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't miss that part at all. The fact remains that much of wikipedia uses sources that do not fully comply or just don't comply at all with Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. I agree that different views should be shown, my issue was and still is the vandalism that occurs on Armenia related pages, especially near April, when the Armenian Genocide is commemorated. Having dealt with POV pushers for sometime now I was quick to think maybe you were part of it. I realize that you are not, and like me, you are interested in making wikipedia a more reliable encyclopedia. On a related note, if you are going to be making major edits to Armenian articles, please use history books that deal with Armenia as the topic of the book, not those that mention Armenia in a brief section or two, like books about Persia or some other nation/kingdom that borders Armenia. I'm not sure if you have run across Iranian uber nationalists before, but many of them claim Armenians are 'Christian Iranians' and other such nonesense.--Moosh88 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You are sounding hysterical by making statements of "Iranian nationalists", demands on which sources I can and can not use and telling me some unpublished tripe by a sockpuppet is acceptable. If Cambridge and Oxford arent good enough for you........ --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you that dense that you didn't understand the background I was painting for you? It was my hope you would understand why I was quick to judge that you might be trolling but I suppose you are unwilling to let bye gones be by gones. Keep your edits fair and we will not have any issues. See ya!--Moosh88 (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Telling me what sources I can and can not use and supporting a sockpuppet do not speak well of your character. Your eagerness to remove sources that included quotes, speaks more of trolling and nationalist nonsense than anything I have done. As for your statement on my editing, I'll edit when and where I wish using published sources, regardless of your opinion. If you have a problem with me, then I urge you to notify an Admin and talk your song and dance to him/her. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Greek Genocide

Thanks for the notice, I'll keep an eye on it. I also plan to expand specific sections.Alexikoua (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Roger Savory

Please see Talk:Roger Savory. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Could you please comment on the following:

RfC: Is Polukhov's statement worth being kept in the article?

Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 11:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Safavids

Hi Can you take a look at the talkpage. Note the RfC and my response to the RfC in detail above the RfC. As a 3rd party, your 3rd view perspective can be helpful. Also see my last point (in the long post) about separating the articles into two: "Safavid empire" and "Safavid family" --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I would, but since Atabəy labeled me as a racist[44], I doubt he would accept my opinion as 3rd party. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If Atabəy makes any similar remarks this time, there will be consequences. From what Khodabandeh told me, you may be one of the few people who knows about this topic. The history of Safavid dynasty shows you've made 37 edits there. Your comments at Talk:Safavid dynasty would be welcome. On any controversial matters, it is good to get opinions from at least three editors. Folantin has been asked to mediate on this article, and the admins are waiting in the wings to limit any misbehavior. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi, would appreciate you comment at Talk:Malibeyli_and_Gushchular_Massacre. Best, -- Ashot  ^(talk) 17:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

re Caucasus Emirate

Yeah, turns out kavkazcenter.com is their website and it's blacklisted for being an unreliable source, see [45]. So perhaps all citations to it need to be independently resourced. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

proposal

Hi, Thanks for your continous wikipedia editing and some of us actually appreciate the fact that people like yourself who are not from the region are ensuring that there is a WP:NPOV basis to many of these articles. I made a comment on EdJohnson's page on a proposal. Feel free to give your input, if any. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not an Admin(and do not want to be one) and Turkish/Azeri editors would never allow me to be on any "committee" with influence over their area of articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think the problem with such editors is unfortunate as you have clearly demonstrated neutrality. But the good thing about history is that its essense cannot be changed. I would definitely led EdJohnson and other admins know of any new provocations from such editors. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Van

What an excellent idea. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think so too :) By the way, what is your opinion about Talk:Aviation Squadrons (Ottoman Empire) ? And which one is better as English, "Military aviation of the Ottoman Empire" or "Military aviation in the Ottoman Empire" ? Takabeg (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, "Military aviation in the Ottoman Empire" --would mean any military aviation, not exclusively the Ottoman Empire's aviation. Whereas, "Military aviation of the Ottoman Empire --would indicate military aviation exclusively of the Ottoman Empire. So it depends on which aspect you are wanting to represent. Hope that helps. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ghurids

I am being honest with you: I think that User:Tofaan needs to get banned. His nonsense in the article Ghurid dynasty is against everything what Wikipedia stands for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.253 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

82.83.137.253 has opened up an AN/I discussion on Tofaan, and I'd appreciate your input. The whole situation over at Ghurid Dynasty is extremely confusing, other than the obvious edit warring going on. Tofaan just violated WP:3RR, and I've banned him for 24 hours for it. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

Hi. I provided some sources to this article. When you have time, can you control and improve them ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Kansas Bear. You have new messages at Talk:Rahat al-sudur.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, done! Glad to be of assistance. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Category

Hi Bear. Category:People of the Ottoman Empire by occupation & Category:Ottoman people by occupation seem to be same categories. Which category is better ? Takabeg (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I would go with Category:Ottoman people by occupation --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Problem was solved. Takabeg (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. What do you think of this problem ? Takabeg (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ghorid dynasty

Hi Kansas Bear, i really don't understand why we are putting one source above other. In my POV: an NPOV means that all sources should be mentioned and what they have to say. But the thing that makes me sad in the article Ghorids is that one source is mentioned above other. Which is in my POV not a N-POV and i can't accept the fact that this article is rather showing the POV of Persians (an ethnic issue) then being a free and N-POV. you can correct me if i am wrong.Tofaan (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Your removal of the Ghurids expanding Persian and Persian culture is a POV edit. I have added a reference(which you have ignored and removed) which supports what you are removing, since you have some hatred of Persia, Persians, Persian language, etc. I have already notified an Admin of your disruptive behavior. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Zaza people

I've protected this but also posted to the editor's talk page saying they have to start communicating. This seems pretty contentious, take a look at my talk page about them considering themselves Kurds. It appears to me that the sources disagree, but maybe they don't. Remember Admins always protect WP:The Wrong Version. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I only restored numerous references which were replaced by the word "partian". I did not take the time to check what the references stated. I honestly do not have any feelings about it one way or another. I doubt you will get any conversation out of that editor. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello dear Kansas Bear. I did reported the User Erdemaslancan to the Admin because he removed all of my Sources without Reason. Could you please take part in the discussion as witness. Because you saw it on first hand how he did remove all scientific sources without Reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Zaza_people

Wikisupporting (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Here so you might make yourself a picture what was going on with this User.

Erdemaslancan removed all of my sources without a reason he didn´t even gave a statement about this. Isn´t this Vandalism? how can he remove scientific sources without reason.

Here are the points which made me suspicious about "Erdemaslancan"´s intentions.

1. He changes my part of the Text from "ethnic Kurdish" into ethnic Partian. first of all. The Group is called Parthian and not Partian.

2. He removed all of the sources (9 in number)I linked to the article, which most of them are scientific and replaces it by only one Source which is an encyclopedia. One of my Sources is Paul Ludwig whom is one of the main Sources of the whole article. So it is somehow wrong and double moral if we use some of his words as reference and some other not.

3. He uses this article from Iranica as a Source for his claim Zazas being of Parthian descend while in the whole article there is not one sentence mentioning anything like Zaza being a Parthian Group.

http://www.iranica.com/articles/dimli

ironically even his Source confirms my Point.

I Quote

"The Armenian term Kʿrder, literally “Kurds" paragraph three Even if they were distinguished from other Kurds (probably due linguistic Reasons) still they were referred as Kurds and this is the main point.

4. Even if the Parthians were their ancestors. Still they would have nothing to do with the recent identity of Zaza because the Parthians are a ancient Group. It makes as much sense as saying "Tuscans are not Italian, they are of Roman origin"

5. That he changed the article to if like the Zaza are descend from Parthian by using a source which doesen´t confirms this, shows me that the only thing he might be after was vandalism. It is not in his interests to contribute something to Wikipedia otherwise he wouldn´t have simply removed scientific sources and added a source he most probably didn´t even red himself before and only changed one part of the whole article. And this was the kurdish part and nothing else which let me assume that there is a political issue behind it.

6. Even in his Source there is no mentioning of Zaza being not kurdish. Funnily there is one time mentioned that they were called Kurds even if they were distinguished from other Kurds (probably due the language/linguistic) but still they were considered and called Kurds.

7. The Article is about Zaza being a Iranian People. This isn´t wrong but at the same time this doesen´t meant that they aren´t Kurds. Because the Kurdish Group also belongs to the Iranian family. For more details see the Iranian languages article.

The whole thing at least for me seems like this. The User who edited the article just wanted to make Chaos (Vandalism) So the article gets closed.

Sorry for my bad english. I am not native speaker Wikisupporting (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

hello Kansas Bear. There is a RFC going on about the Zaza article I wanted to ask you if you want to take part on it.

Here more information about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kwamikagami#Zaza_people

And here the discussion section of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zaza_people

Wikisupporting (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Bear, This user propagated article. I controlled sources and understood (like Talk:Timur). Now he is continuing to commit vandalism. How can we stop him ? Takabeg (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked Dougweller to protect the article Timur and was simply ignored.[46] Apparently my concerns were misplaced, despite the resulting edit war and page protection now covering the article. It would appear that User:Wikisupporting is trying to effect a change in the Zaza article with the influence of Dougweller. I do not know what help I can render, unfortunately most of my concerns about plagiarism[47] and edit-warring have been treated with contempt. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you know other neutral users who are interested in the Middle East. Takabeg (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg, I'm a neutral user who is already tired of your accusations. As I've already explained, someone isn't a WP:vandal just because you disagree with them, even if they are edit warring. This is a WP:Content dispute. Both of you need to grow up if you want to be taken seriously. It's very simple: present WP:reliable sources for your claims. Whoever is supported by the sources "wins". But running around screaming "vandal!" isn't going to get you anywhere. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Hi Bear. Unfortunately some user misunderstood problem completely. I'll reguests for comment of other users. Now in which topics of Wikipedia:Requests for comment do I have to request ? What do you think of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture. Or in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics (but there is no mutual intelligibility between Zazaki and Kurdish. This fact could mislead discussion. It could be "harmful" for neutrality of Wikipedia. I want to know your opinion. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kansas Bear

It seems the User with whom I have a "content issue" is trying to "bring me in bad light" in front of other Users/Admins. He is mentioning that Zazaki and Kurmanji-Kurdish have no mutual intelligibility while no one claimed the opposite. this are linguistic issues and no one has claimed that Zazaki is a dialect of Kurmanji-Kurdish. None of the languages spoken by Kurds has mutual intelligibility with the other this is nothing special about Zaza. And is also found all over the world. Be it the Chinese, Indian, Afghan "dialects" And again a language doesen´t indicates a ethnicity. A ethnicity is indicate by self-identification. His whole arguments seem to be simply based on accusing but none sources are given by him which support his thesis of a distinct "Zaza identity" from Kurdish. This is getting obvious for someone who reads the discussion of us on the Zaza talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zaza_people#Neutrality

I asked him 4-5 times to please show sources that the Zaza are not considered or consider themselves ethnically as Kurds but rather have a distinct "Zaza awareness".

But the only things I got were wrong accusing which had contributed nothing to the article. Even other Admins/Users recognized this.

The only thing he goes to detail is the linguistic issue. While even the Admin Kwami mentioned that the linguistic is not the answer for the identity of Zaza. This is also what linguist like Paul Ludwig writes in his book, which is ironically used as one of the main sources for the distinction between Zazaki and Kurmanji Kurdish. page 390 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LuVSkpVuAkAC&pg=PA385&dq=zaza+paul+ludwig&hl=de&ei=sFUCTpvML8-OswbH4smODQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=zaza%20paul%20ludwig&f=false

Please don´t let your mind be "manipulated" by "kind and innocent looking words" because usually there is a nationalism behind all of this and in this Case, it is a new nationalism tried to be imposed over a group with help of wikipedia used as a political board by some Users. Wikisupporting (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Van...

Hi Bear. We've talked about this topic. Do you remember Talk:Van Resistance. See you. Takabeg (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi Bear. When you have time, could you control this issue ? Takabeg (talk) 05:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The compromise I would offer is calling him an "Ottoman Turk". But since you are dealing with an ultra-nationalist that has an intolerance-of-other-ethnic-groups, this will most likely be rejected. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Algiers

Hi Kansas Bear. When you have time, could you control these edits ? Takabeg (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Responses from Ali Historian

my friend i'm not persianism.please do not insult me.i am historian.Encyclopaedic Historiography of the Muslim World and Islam after communism not reliable source historical.Unfortunately you don't have enough iranian historical information.I'm Sorry.Ali Historian (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Ali Historian

hi my friend, I can't Translation my historical Sources.this work for me is very hard.Either for historical reference should use the old history ,but in internet environment ,encyclopedia is true and fairly reliable. now In order for you to make informed:in history source and book such as book of aburihan birooni ,hamze isfahani , ibn balkhi and... nowhere not founded That samanids is tajik or aveacina is tajik or abu rihan is tajik and..... that two university references and other historical Books used this up books. I read western book translation that Samanids knew the Persian.(and encyclopedia britanica and iranica(that western historian make it)).If my English wasn't poor You had to convinced. in some Poetry of samanids poet samanids named king of iran(persia): خداوند ما نوح فرخ نژاد که بر شهر ایران بگسترد داد [ my king Nuh I from race of victory ---- that expanded Justice in Iranshar(name of country iran in old) ] or rudaki Poetry : شادی بوجعفراحمد بن محمد آن مه آزادگان و مفخر ایران [happy for abu jaafar ahmad ibn mohammad ---- he is magnate and proud iranian] i don't now (abu jaafar ahmad ibn mohammad) but i think he is samanids general and he was samanids family. write this Post for me is very hard and long. Either I enjoyed the discussion with you.byeAli Historian (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Ali Historian

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

BEARskinner

I reported him to to ]]Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention]] and he was blocked. If that happens again, you can report him. Or let me know and I will. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Dennis Rader Connection to El Dorado, Kansas

Thank you for responding to my comments at Talk:El Dorado, Kansas regarding Dennis Rader's connection to the city. As noted in my comments on that Talk page, I felt that some other connection to the city beyond his involuntary incarceration in a nearby prison needed to be established in order for him to remain on that article's "Notable people" section. --TommyBoy (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette

The relation between Marie Antoinette and the Valois, although not strictly relevant for her becoming queen, is a bit more interesting than mere trivia. The Valois dynasty died out after a series of violent episodes and sudden sicknesses, leaving the throne of France in the hands of a distant relative, Henri IV. Also the Valois-Angoulême, unlike the Valois-Orléans, did not manage to have royal descendants in France following the ascension of the House of Bourbon. Therefore it's a historical curiosity that the two family branches were somehow reunited when Marie Antoinette married the future Louis XVI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.25.89 (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles is back

The trivia at Marie Antoinette that you're questioning here is a nuisance edit perpetrated by our old vandal, now indefinitely blocked, LouisPhilippeCharles, whom you'll remember from and here and here and here and edits by his sockpuppet Tbharding, here and here and here. You can see his block log here. Periodically he re-incarnates under various IPs that get promptly exposed and banned. FactStraight (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sari Gelin

Good day. My English not so good, and then, can you add some details to this request ? --Movses (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Slave trade

Concerning your note to me on the 14th: The three sentences you have referred seem to be correct. Crimea was one of the most active slave markets both in the middle ages and in early modern ages. During the Republic of Genoa control in Kefe, Kypchak slaves were exported to Egypt and elsewhere and the Mamluk regime in Egypt depended on this slave trade. After Kefe was captured by the Ottoman Empire, the situation was reversed, and non Moslem slaves (mainly Ukranians and later Circassians) were exported. In his book Osmanlılar (Halil İnalcık:Osmanlılar, İstanbul, ISBN 987 605-114-188-6 pp.186-188) Prof Halil İnalcık (Professor of History in Chicago University 1972-1993) writes " After the 16th century no other slave trader was able to compete with Crimean slave market and the main slave provider to the Ottoman Empire was Crimean Tatars " (I am afraid I am a poor translator. But I don't think his book has been translated to English yet) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I was not sure of the sentences and the latest "source" that was posted on the talk page. Your information is very helpful and enlightening. My sincerest thanks, Nedim! --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I am always ready for collaboration. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Avignon papacy

Hello! Thanks for your note (and sorry for the lateness of this reply; I've not been around much)
Your explanation (to me, and in the edit history) is fair enough; I was reacting mainly to a source being deleted without much of an explanation, the first time round. I'm not familiar with Morris' book, and my local library doesn't have one, but (given the title) I'm surprised he doesn't mention the subject; is it worth putting it in the bibliography? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You can place it in the Bibliography, but the book only goes till 1250. Although, it would give a good background for the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahh! 1250; the penny drops! I'm thinking of the wrong century altogether! My apologies for the confusion...Moonraker12 (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

March Days

Thank you for the note. I provided my comments on talk page and restored to version by Yerevanci. Anon IP attempts to deviate from primary subject by focusing on less related events. Atabəy (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the IP started edit warring in the article, so I requested semi-protection. Atabəy (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

Yes, won't reply instantly though as going out for a bit. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

March Days

Thank you for the note. I provided my comments on talk page and restored to version by Yerevanci. Anon IP attempts to deviate from primary subject by focusing on less related events. Atabəy (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the IP started edit warring in the article, so I requested semi-protection. Atabəy (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

Yes, won't reply instantly though as going out for a bit. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops

Ooops! I am sorry for the wrong cut & paste [48]. I wanted to get your feedback on the current mechanism to check some of the AA related articles. Do you think they are sufficient or ineffective? Thank you.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Caca Bey

Thank you for your information Kansas...--Carotis (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Are you the same Kansas Bear from WAB? This is Ironduke. Saw that you had last edit on the Battle of Lisbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironman419 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Arabization of Saladin

Hello, it doesn't seem to say that Saladin himself was Arabized, but that his Kurdish tribe had assimilated to the local Arab rulers in the generations before his birth (pg. 129). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Review request

Hello. I need your help to review these articles. Because this user changed or changes them without any reason. The articles are:

- Hazara people: Related ethnic groups. Content dispute about should we mention Turkic people or not? According to the article and sources, I think It's need to be mentioned in the related ethnic groups. But she removes it from infobox without any reason every time. I want your opinion about this.

- On theses articles: Shams Tabrizi, Qatran Tabrizi, Khaqani, and Mahsati; she changed sourced content from "Persian" to "Iranian". Changed categories and inserted a false and wrong category about their ethnicity (added Azeri ethnicity category). I didn't see anything about "Iranian" in the references, so according to the sources the word "Iranian" is wrong. All of these persons are classic Persian poets and sources call them Persian not Iranian. Another thing is about changing categories. Odd edits are done by this user. Specially putting these persons into wrong ethnic groups. Need your review about her edits. Because I talked with her about this before and she just continues her works. Another person like you will be a great hand to help and improve these articles and cases.

Thanks. Regards. Xooon (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Turco85 and Iraqi Turkomen

I found you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraqi_Turkmens/Archive_1 Turco85 is back on this page trying to steal the Iraqi Turkmen identity and claim them as some kind of misplaced Anatolian Turks. MamRostam03 (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to the specific edit in which the talkpage is archived possibly improperly? I cannot find it. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I can understand, user:MamRostam contends the ongoing discussion was not finished(I was under the impression it wasnt) and that the facts from published sources was the underlying reason why the page was archived. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much Kansas Bear. As always. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Given your expertise, could you take a look at this discussion here. Are "Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire" and "Concise Encyclopaedia of World History," acceptable expert WP:RS citations, that can be used to refute or contradict secondary sources, written by experts and scholars on the subject? Kurdo777 (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Khwarezmid Empire unexplained deletion response

Persian was the official language. Too bad Turkish nationalists try to change facts. Oghuz being the popular language of Khwarezm is the biggest joke I ever heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.147.122.42 (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any reliable sources justifying your edit. Both need reliable sources, therefore both should stay. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, fact of the matter is you don't know what the definition of a Persianate society is. Persianate means that the country is dominated by Persian language and culture, and forms the identity of that nation, regardless of ethnic origin of the leaders. Fact is, when some idiotic nationalist attempts to say Oghuz Turkic was the 'popular' language is laughable. The article has enough sources indicating Persian language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.43.23.243 (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not even. None of the sources state that the Khwarazmian dynasty was a persianate. None of the sources state anything about languages used during the dynasties(as far as I have found). This has nothing to do with any nationalism of any type. It would be prudent for us to go through each reference and re-establish exactly what they say. Even if Persian is used in the dynasty, that would not remove the possibility that they would use Turkish. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Kansas Bear. Sorry to interupt your talkpage, but I thought it might be useful to inform you about this. The users has started accusing everyone who had disagreed with her during recent days. Regards.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would appear that you were the only editor, courteous enough, to actually post a notice on my talk page, concerning user:Orartu's accusations against me. Rather amusing since user:Orartu is accusing me of "incivility", yet by her own actions can not be "civil" enough to, " Notify the involved user(s); place a short and polite statement on their talk page...". My sincerest thanks for posting in my defense. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Lets analyse the situation, this is from the Bulgar language talk page:

Please, provide a reliabe linguistic sources about this unbelievable and frivolous claim. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

>>>As you can see Jingiby is being uncivil and unpolite with the words "unbelievable and frivolous claim", when time and time again there are sources for those comments. Jingiby himself is a hypocrite as he says the source is unreliable - kroraina.com -when he himself uses it often in his edits, he himself in some reply to me said the source is fine. Can you see what is wrong here.

Umm. I dont know if you have seen, but we have provided sources, one of which is a site that you regularly use. In it, any person can see the significant number of words that are of Pamirian origin, it is not like the words are 10 or 20 in number, but more. So the, how is it an unbelievable claim. That you suffer from seemingly Iranophobia (as your interaction, which is often uncivil or border on it, with edits in the Bulgar page and other pages indicates) should not come in the way of editing an article. Please keep your feelings and strong words to yourself, and stop saying that this is not a forum when nobody treats it as such - what is wrong with you?Smart Nomad (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC) >>>My comments here are not an attack, as you state, but justified. You can understand that theu are justified if you take good time to read ALL the discussions in the latest Bulgar talk page. That I said he suffers from Iranophobia is a justified comment - I would npt have said it if it was not justified, as that would then really be uncivil and an attack. Next time, before you post the comment that you did on people's talk pages, take time to fully analyse the situation and read everything and understand where the other guy is coming from (that is me). I said he suffers from Iranophobia because he removes sources, ignores them or continues to say they are pseudoscience when in fact they have garnered much support and cant be considered as pseudoscience - especially when there are proffesors, genetic labs of academy of sciences and scientists involved, Also, if you read Jingiby's edit comments on a variety of edits on Bulgar related things you would see that he constantly comments with uncivil and unpolite words and accusations - that is if he ever writes something in the first place as much of the time he never says anything to me. Then at the end of my comments I wrote "What is wrong with you" - again justified to write that after Jingiby repeats the forum thing over and over again, especially in the Bulgar talk page, when nobody is using it as a forum but instead people discuss edit issues. I hope you understand where I am coming from and that I am not a typical vandal type editor and such. If you post such a warning on my talk page, then surely you should post something like that on Jingiby's page as well - because of the things I have mentioned and his often unpolite words

Kind Regards Smart Nomad (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing excuses calling someone "uneducated" or an Iranophobe or any kind of -"phobe". Continued personal attacks will warrant the attention of an Admin. Happy Editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please no POV pushing by erasing the different versions of the name of the city of Kars in other languages.

Please no POV pushing by erasing the different versions of the name of the city of Kars in other languages, especially of those countries and ethnicities that ruled the city and/or settled there. I am aware that the Armenian period in the history section of the city is delibaretely erased. This does constitute as vandalism as does the erasing of the city’s name in the other languages. The discussion(s) in the talk page between Turkish/Azeri and Armenian Wikipedists does not settle the "dispute" of the city’s history and its names in different languages at all, because the discussion from both sides (which is still ongoing for years) has nationalist overtones and is an attempt to ignore and overide or alltogether erase the periods of the city’s history each side sees as "incovenient". And despite the near identical pronounciation of the city's name by the certain ethnicities who ruled and/or settled in this city in the past and/or who presently live is relevant. The issue here is not about which ethnicity ruled the longest or had the most impact. See also the articles Istanbul (Toponymy section) and Names of Istanbul for comparison. The impartiality and neutrality has to be upheld. Therefore every version, and not only one has to be restored.

Noraton talk 11:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Kars". Thank you.

Noraton talk 11:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

Constantinople / Istanbul

Well, I admit that I did not knew much about history of usage of terms Constantinople / Istanbul in English sources. I primarily used Serbian and Bosnian sources where Ottoman capital is often named Stambol. I also found this source which says that name "Stamboul" was used in western sources as a designation for "walled city inside Constantinople" and that name might well correspond with Serbian/Bosnian sources in which term "Stambol" primarily designated Ottoman capital and place where Ottoman sultan is situated. PANONIAN 18:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Too Strong

Hi Kansas Bear, my use of the words "Thanks for the lack of good faith" under Byzantine Empire Discussion Page were too strong and you have my apologies for that. Coupled with other attempts to undermine my edits on the article page as soon as they were included, I was getting the impression of being set up to be accused of being a "hack" (for want of a better word). But having now looked at some of the hitherto discussions I can see why you would query it. Hopefully the quoted text will satisfy you that I was being quite true to the literature. Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. I have responded on the Byzantine Empire talk page. Hopefully my suggestion is acceptable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. (I was doing similar things when I first joined Wikipedia and was almost immediately accused of being soc. Irrespective of IP searches and objective assessments etc clearing me, I faced months of being accused by certain others of doing ridiculous things such as flying around the world daily just to make edits under different names - which was used as an excuse to delete my actual edits. So I sometimes get my back up prematurely.) I replied with congratulations on the wedding on my talk page. I'll have a go are responding on the talk page now. Apologies if the reply is slower to be formulated than I hoped (I have similar time constraints). Its tough subject, but fascinating. Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

[49]Congratulations, Kansas Bear! Much happiness to your daughter! Kafka Liz (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Liz! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Caucasian Albanians

I may have this the wrong way, but here are my thoughts. First, the quote should be corrected to reflect what the source actually says. Second, I'm not sure the entire thing need be included at all, if the point is merely to show that Ghandazar was an independent See. It's pretty clear from the context that the author is referring the Seljuks, not the Caucasian Albanians, as the "direct ancestors of present day Azerbaijanis", and I'm not sure I see the point in adding it. I'd support trimming the quote to what is relevant to the article at hand. If there's something I've missed here... please let me know :). Kafka Liz (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Information removal on Çankaya Köşkü

Hi Kansas. Do you think you can keep an eye on the article Çankaya Köşkü. Over the past few months, some IPs have been removing crucial bits of information about the previous owners of this palace, namely the fact that they were rounded up during the Armenian Genocide and dispossessed of all their belongings. The IPs delete these facts and the reader is left to wonder why and precisely when they were deported. On each occasion I have rolled back the unexplained edits (though it's clear enough to me why the information is being removed), but I'm unable to direct my attention to it always. I would appreciate it if maybe you can add it to your watch list. Thanks. Best regards, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle Of Mutah =

Dear Sir, I am a student in O Levels and am studying Islamiat. The number of soldiers of the Byzantine Empire have been said to be 100,000 to 200,000 by various blog sites, books and the OFFICIAL Cambrdige Marking Scheme, but you deem many blogs an unreliable source, the number of soldiers said now are less than 10,000 on the official page. This may cause a lot of confusion among people, I tried to follow the cited source for 10,000 or less but could not trace back to any such figure. Please help me clear this confusion, and allow multiple blogs to be deemed as reliable sources, thanks.

     Edit 2: I have in my hand the book of Yasmin Malik : Islam Beliefs and Practices, and on page 37 it clearly states the figure of 100,000, can you please fix this at your earliest convenience, thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.183.115 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 

After a cursory search, Yasmin Malik does not appear to be an historian. You have not presented any evidence to prove "that book in your hands" is a reliable source and judging from the title, it is not an academically published history book. I would suggest taking your concerns to the article talk page, where you will find numerous reliable sources listed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yasmin Malik is the standard book to teach students Islamiat, one of the standard atleast, including Farkhanda Noor, I tried to follow the "reliable" sources but could NOT find the number 10,000 listed anywhere, wherever I see a number mentioned, it's 100,000, can you please point out where is 10k written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.190.12.218 (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Malik is not an historian and the book in question is self published, which means it is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The Seljuks

Dear Kansas , I think you have made a mistake in your interpration about the meaning of ethnicity.If you read wikipedia about ethnicity you would see an ethnicity is defined based on the anccestors , language and culture of a group of people.as you do agree with e the later generations of the house of Seljuk was highly Persinated by culture and language , so I can not understand why do you against the Persian part of the house of Seljuk

This is not my interpretation. This is blatantly stated by the academic sources I have provided.

• According to Canfield, Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, page 12, "This composite culture was the beginning of the Turko-Persian variant of Islamicate culture. It was Persianate in that it was centered on the lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkish in so far as it was for many generations patronized by rulers of Turkic ancestry..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kara-Khanid Khanate may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Infobox Former Country
• Central Asia'', (E.J. Brill, 1962), 99.</ref><br>[[Persian language|Persian]]{<small>Poetry</small>)<ref name="iranica">{{cite web |url=http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ilak-khanids |title=ILAK-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

It seems Dengesizz (talk · contribs) is the new sockpuppet of EMr KnG (talk · contribs). I submitted a SPI case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/EMr_KnG. It will be very helpful if you write your comment. Because we encountered this user on several articles before (e.g. Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century). Also, it's possible that he registered multiple accounts and attacks other articles. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The see also section of Battle of Tarain

The battles of Salher and Raichur are not directly related to the battle of Tarain, however the single common element of all these battles are that they the ones whereby the native (Hindu) Indian army defeated (or achieved some level of success) an invading foreign one (here foreign one implies an Islamic one). Nonetheless your wish. Amit20081980 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Kansas Bear. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Opinion

Do you agree with this reversion? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Prima facie, it appears correct. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Mutah

I have read the Arabic and Byzantine history books about the battle in great detail. The muslims were first pushed back from the original battle field when three of thier leaders were killed. They then camped in Mutah were they skirmishes with the Byzantines and Khalid ibn waleed took over. Who made it appear as if new troops arrived. This made the Byzantines withdraw and then the muslims withdrew. YOU have to look at sources from both sides to get a clearer picture. Kasif the great (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I dont care what you have read. Articles on wikipedia are written using published secondary sources, not primary sources or your or anyone else's opinions. Unreliable and primary sources will be removed and replaced with reliable published secondary sources.--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there any detailed analysis of the battle from a secondary source, I'm very interested in reading, I think I have pinpointed the Urban legend of the Muslim Victory which is solely based on the Khalid's performance (based on Al-Waqidi) at the end of the battle. Yet Ibn Kathir (based on Ibn Ishaq)mentions the fact that the Muslim when they were back in Medina people started throwing sand and calling them cowards. Seems not a victory. I think a lot of Muslim people who can't take this defeat today and before, is the fact that you can't call Khalid's supposed retreat a victory based on Modern Standards. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not found, through google books or books I own, any detailed account of the battle. Granted the bulk of the sources are from Western sources, however, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, which I have quoted on the Battle of Mu'tah talk page, is written by academics that are specialists in the field of Islam. As for primary sources, we should avoid the direct usage of primary sources, unless quoted by published secondary sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't used primary source ever in Wikipedia, even if I did I'm very careful and give priority to secondary sources, I have Encyclopedia of Islam IE2, I'm still not satisfied with the details. I am sure someone has analyzed it, just have to dig deep. But one thing that caught my eye how the editor/contributor named F. Buhl doesn't take Khalid's supposed strategy of retreat seriously (based on Al-Waqidi). Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason it is considered an Islamic victory is because Muslims suffered 12 casualties, while the number of casualties on Byzantines side was at least in hundreds, up to 3000 at maximum. Muslims were not able to avenge the death of their envoy, but they showed their strength and damaged the enemy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.183.115 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

What secondary sources state this? All I see is personal opinion unsupported by published secondary sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

     Hey infidel! Never insult Kasif the great (talk) or Muhammad or any other muslim again or I will troll the crap out of you! Takbir! ALLAHU AKBAR!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.19.238.67 (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC) 

Dear hater of the great and holy pizza. My pepperoni hordes will never bow to your personal attacks. I have anchovies by the thousands ready to engulf the world in a never-ending spasm of mozzarella cheese. Beware the coming of the sharpened pizza cutter.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Louis IV of France

Hi, thanks for your kind opinion. I just in the process to translated the article from french to english, so I first translated all and at the end i put the respective references. Thanks a lot for your concern. Aldebaran69 (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Keep it up! Cheers. Zyma (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you sir! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Opinion

Mind giving your opinion regarding this dispute here? It's about the inclusion of the Persian translation in the lede. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

A user changed ethnicity of Massagetae [50]. Previous lead was stable for a long time and I think it's based on cited sources. That user is an experienced editor (an admin). So the new revision confuses me. Is it based on WP:WEIGHT or what? Would you please review it? --Zyma (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I have found;

• 1.Karasulas, Antony. Mounted Archers Of The Steppe 600 BC-AD 1300 (Elite). Osprey Publishing, 2004, ISBN 184176809X, p. 7, states the Massagetae spoke an Iranian language, which does not necessarily mean they were Iranic. Which Karasulas goes into detail about how certain peoples spoke a Turkic language but were not Turkic.(pages 7-8) Also, as far as I could find, Karasulas is a doctoral student at the Australian National University, so I have concerns over his reliability as a source.
• 2.Wilcox, Peter. Rome's Enemies: Parthians and Sassanids. Osprey Publishing, 1986, ISBN 0-85045-688-6, p. 9, states the Massagetae were an Iranian people, however I can not find anything about Wilcox. Therefore, for me, his reliability as a source is a concern.
• 3.Gershevitch, Ilya. The Cambridge History of Iran (Volume II). Cambridge University Press, 1985, ISBN 0-521-20091-1, p. 48, states the Massagetae were an Iranian tribe.
• 4.Grousset, René. The Empire of the Steppes. Rutgers University Press, 1989, ISBN 0-8135-1304-9, p. 547, fine source, however, the page simply states what Massyagata means in Iranian. Which does not mean they were Iranic.
• 5.The Cambridge History of Iran: The Median and Achaemenian periods. By Ilya Gershevitch, same source as #3.
  

So essentially, only the Cambridge source is viable, however if the Wilcox source checks out it would also be a viable source.

I will start a discussion on the Massagetae talk page and see if Grant65 has sources that state something else. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think you can write a better revision than Iranian (old revision) or Indo-European (current revision). If all sources do not support Iranian origin or Iranian theory is not strong enough, then it's better to move them to a new section, e.g. "Origin" section. Just like Huns and Xiongnu. --Zyma (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Report that new user to an admin. As you already know, he and those IP-hoppers are this guy. Same insults, same behavior on talk page. --Zyma (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Royal Alcazar of Madrid

I already answered in the talk page, sorry for the time that i answered, i was busy--Vvven (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

A reference

Hey KB, long time no talk. Hope you're doing fine. I was wondering; could you perhaps check whether this added reference is a legit one? I've actually never read about these "plans" in the mainstream historiography, nor about the writer, hence my doubts. Thanks much in advance. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

According to the inside of the book, Raghubir Sinh appears to have been an historian, Malwa in Transition being his doctoral thesis. The book appears reliable, though its historiography is outdated. It wouldn't hurt to find a corroborating source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to Yusuf Adil Shah. There does seem that one ends up either relying on writers like Firishta and Münejjim Bashi, and their more recent advocates, or siding with more recent writers that dismiss them as fiction. It seems better to try and find a way to be objective and so thank you for your work trying to cut through the tangle. Simongraham (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Qutb Shah

As a junior editor, I truly respect you and your point of views but could you please tell me that how the sources which I stated to back my information are wrong and how your source from a satisfactory book source which contradicts with many of the Old and modern Writings is more reliable and worth citing here. Thank You. Muhammadahmad79 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• A Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province by Horace Arthur Rose. H.A. Rose is not an historian, therefore this source is not reliable and the page which discusses Qutb Shah states "According to one tradition of the Awans.....". Which means this should not be presented as historical fact. unreliable source, source misrepresentation

• The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon, Chapter 57, Gibbon is an outdated source, has no specialization in this area, oh and since I own Gibbon's unabridged version of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 57 does not mention Qutb Shah. Did you copy it from here? source misrepresentation

• Martial Races of Undivided India by Vidya Prakash Tyagi, not an historian(even his own book fails to make the claim). You re-added this despite admin Utcursch's warning this book is not WP:RS -- it is copied from Wikipedia.unreliable source

• The Spiritual Guides of Sarwari Qadri Order By Sultan Mohammad Najib-ur-Rehman, primary source translated by non-historians. unreliable source

• Kashf ul Asrar English Translation: Sultan Bahoo English Book Kashf ul Asrar, by Sultan Bahoo, primary source translated by non-historian. unreliable source

• Researched By Dr Muhammad Iqbal Awan and Jalhari Moazzam Shah, you edited this into another article whilst logged out(as an IP), this is from ancestry.com. unreliable source

• Tohfat Al Awan (Book), nothing on books.google.com or amazon.com. Probably a fake book.

• History of Awan, by Muhammad Sarwar Khan Awan, nothing on books.google.com or amazon.com. Nothing about the author. Appears to repeat the same fairy tales.

• Talbot, W.S., 1991, Gazetteer of the Jhelum District 1904: Part 1, Sang-e-Meel Publications, p.100 and Kaul, H., 1912, Report on the Census of Punjab 1911, p.p.445-446. Neither of these are reliable sources, not written by historians.unreliable source

• الشجرۃ-الزکیتہ-فی-انساب-بنیی-ھاشم, you can read this? Or did you simply copy and paste it from one of these sites?

You do not appear to understand what a reliable source actually is, ignoring even what the Rose source states, "According to one tradition of the Awans....., which means its a legend/fairy tale. Yet you have chosen to present this as historical fact.

So, why don't you explain why you re-added unreliable sources after being told numerous times they were unreliable[51][52][53][54][55][56][57] and why you ignored admin Utcursch's warning? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Michael I of Russia

Regarding this long unsourced sentence "The weeping boyars solemnly declared that if he persisted in his refusal, they would hold him responsible to God for the destruction of Russia" in the firts alinea of the body. I found the reference from which it is taken. Its written by R. Nisbet Bain, a late 1800/early 1900 historian, who published the material in 1908 (thus, outdated). The stuff is published in the 1911 Encylcopaedia Britannica publications as well. The thing now is however, Cambridge University Press has re-published his book in 2013 as the first paperback edition, which still includes the sentence (p 188). Do you think I should cite it as a reference behind the sentence and remove the 6-yo tag, perhaps adding a "Historian R. Nisbet Bain (1854–1909) stated that (...)" with it? Or do you think the whole line should be just deleted as no modern-day sources back up the thing, as well as because the whole thing is unsourced for like... 6 years? - LouisAragon (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Judging from the paragraph structure, the sentence seems out of place and really has no place in the paragraph. It makes assertions not previously mentioned or stated in the paragraph. So yeah, I would scrap it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Lel, I think we got another one for your fanclub (User:Kansas tear). Also, btw, though you might have had already noticed; amongst the masses of socks who have been blocked in the past few days, Steverci has also been CU indeffed as a sock of a long-term sock abuser. My my, what a surprise. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, Bbb23 blocked it, almost before I could mention anything.

Honestly, I really was not surprised Steverci was socking. Sometime ago, I thought I saw a pattern, but it didn't seem relevant. So I figured to just give him more rope. Nice work on the SPI, by the way. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant it in a rather sarcastic way :D At least that's what I hoped it would come across as. It was obvious since a very long time ago that he was socking. And it obviously didn't stop after his first row of socks were blocked.

Btw man, regarding this; you probably figured out yourself long ago, but you've reached the point where no intellectual convo can be held anymore regarding the matter. Don't waste your time. Even if you'd post 99 more reliable sources, it'd still be "just an opinion". You've said your stuff, and you've backed it all up more than well enough. It's saved now for the record. Just wanted to give my own view on that dialogue, as I was kinda involved in the initial matter as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I know. Just thought I would show what The Encyclopaedia of Islam states, since it has an academic editorial board. Wikipedia can be like that, learning something that does not agree with one's personal beliefs. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Btw man, I was just reviewing the Maurya Empire article. I thought its actually hilarious how the article easily claims in the lede, and well as on the unsourced map, that it held territory in what is modern-day Iran, even though no such thing actually happened. I have never ever read of any historical impact/expansion or whatsoever in(to) any part of Iran by this empire. I made a further dig myself therefore, and indeed, I couldn't find a single reliable reference that attests to this tale that the empire, at any point, had expanded into the territory of nowadays Iran. Did you perhaps stumble across this same matter at some time? Does the JSTOR database say something about this? Virtually every source I found myself states that its maximum extent was Pakistan/Afghanistan in the west, but I wonder whether you could list a few more references from JSTOR to fix this once and for all, as well as to to remove/adjust those bogus unsourced maps that are present on the article for a pretty long by now. If it ain't too much of an effort of course.

Just to name a few of the sources that I found;

• Chandragupta founded the Mauryan Empire. His empire encompassed the whole of northern India and Afghanistan. -- Alfred S. Bradford, Pamela M. Bradford (2001). With Arrow, Sword, and Spear: A History of Warfare in the Ancient World p 125

• The vastness of the Mauryan empire, from Afghanistan in the north to Karnataka in the south and from Kathiawad in the west to Kalinga in the east (if not as far as north Bengal), is considered on the basis of the spots where Asoka's edicts were (...) -- Bharati Ray. Different Types of History. Pearson Education India. p 24

• The Maurya Empire extended from Afghanistan in the north to the deep south in India except for the southern tip of (...) -- Stanton, et al. (2012) Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia p. 41

• By 300, Chandragupta ruled over an India that extended from modern Afghanistan to Burma and from the Himalayas to nearly the southern tip of the subcontinent. -- David W. Del Testa (2014) Government Leaders, Military Rulers and Political Activists p. 30

• It has been already shown (Ch. II) that the empire of Candragupta extended from Afghanistan to Mysore and that of Ashoka was far greater in extent including all the Dekhan and South India upto the frontiers of the Tamil Kingdoms. -- V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar (1993) Motilal Banarsidass Publ., The Mauryan Polity'. p 197

• "He [Ashoka] controlled an empire (the largest until British rule) that ranged from Bangladesh in the east to Afghanistan in the north and included much of the southern part of the subcontinent. -- Denise Patry Leidy (2008) The Art of Buddhism: An Introduction to Its History & Meaning p 9

• (...) Candragupta's empire were the Hindu Kush in the north and the Afghan highlands above Herat in the west, and so he (...) -- Jack Finegan (1989) An Archaeological History of Religions of Indian Asia p 109

PS: I'm going to further expand the Russo-Turkish War 1787-1792 in the nearest future. Already got my references ready for it. Thanks for having already removed that Baddely stuff and for having made a great start already. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I can look through JSTOR, but their search engine is sporadic at best.

As for Maurya Empire, has the Grainger source been interpreted incorrectly?

"Seleucus I ceded the territories of Arachosia (modern Kandahar), Gedrosia (modern Balochistan), and Paropamisadae (or Gandhara). Aria (modern Herat) "has been wrongly included in the list of ceded satrapies by some scholars [...] on the basis of wrong assessments of the passage of Strabo [...] and a statement by Pliny." (Raychaudhuri & Mukherjee 1996, p. 594). Seleucus "must [...] have held Aria", and furthermore, his "son Antiochos was active there fifteen years later." (Grainger 2014, p. 109)."

Note the information in the parentheses has been added, since it is not found in the source itself.

If we go looking for Persia/Iran for the furthest extent of Mauryan expansion, I do not believe we will find anything. Gedrosia and Makran, appear linked together. Your thoughts?

Good to hear about the 1787 war. That particular editor(pro-Baddeley) only wants to make the issue of Baddeley's unreliability, personal. I guess when they do not have a real argument... --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Kansas Bear; thanks much. That basically fully confirms my assumptions, namely that the addition of Iran was not much more than some nationalistic ungrounded IP nonsense. It was added in ~ 2014 by some IP (I can even dig for the diff if needed) who randomly decided to insert Iran to it, even though not a single sources makes/made such a mention that the Mauryans ever held territory with the modern-day confines of this nation.

Yeah, the Grainger source has indeed been misinterpreted per WP:OR. Oh btw, this other reference written by Saul, David (2009; War: From Ancient Egypt to Iraq. Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 9781405341332) page 362) seals the whole matter further as he states that the "Gedrosians are known to have successfully prevented the Indian Mauryans from capturing the western-most parts of their state", thus, even, if Gedrosia was to be synonymous with the entire present-day defined confines of "Balochistan", we can safely assert, based on all this, that we were completely right with our doubts. I will make sure the maps/content is fixed accordingly. Been way too long that this ungrounded nonsense was available on the article, but then again, thats why we have so many SPA and sock IP's/accounts. Remember to always assume good faith! Lel. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sent you the sources btw, that you were asking for some time ago related to that other matter. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Mind leaving your opinion here? [58]. PS: I replied to your mail, just in case. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

After checking the discussion, it appears to be more a matter of linguistics, which is not my forté. However, TaivoLinguist and Florian Blaschke may be able to assist you. Sorry. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No probs. The matter has "some" historic aspects, hence why I thought of asking you. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Btw, a matter alike to the thing that went on Battle of Mu'tah is going on here it seems, regarding its content ("100.000 Romanz vs a tiny amount of Muslim forces", for example). I went ahead and deleted/tagged some of the most nonsensical/outrageous content myself, for now. Haven't had the time to fix the article accordingly yet, but the funny thing is, is that even right now the lede and the infobox assert the matter in such way as if there was actually a pitched battle, even though all academics unanimously agree that no such thing ever happened, lel. Surprise? I think not. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The author, Sukhbir Singh Kapoor, "In this early career he was Professor and Head of Accounting at SGTB Khalsa College Delhi, University of Delhi and Principal Lecturer in Accounting at London Guildhall University. Later he became a Guest Professor of Sikhism at the FVG in Antwerp, Belgium."

Not what I would call an historian. LOL.--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

KB, do you by any chance have access to the pages 134 and 176 of; Blow, David (2009). Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-0857716767. If yes, could you copy paste the info regarding the demise of this Armenian dude Yusof Khan? I believe its specifically stated on p. 176, but not entirely sure. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, so far it appears that page 159-184 are not viewable. Let me do some digging and see if I can bring something up. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw, lel.[59][60]. Anti-Arabism lmao. - LouisAragon (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing. I even check google books in other languages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

- No problem. Thank much for your effort.

- On the Persianate society page; I have excluded the Khanates of the Caucasus so far (e.g. Erivan Khanate, Karabakh Khanate, etc.) as most of them that had prominence were simply de facto provinces under the Safavids/Qajars. Having said that, I think that the Durrani Empire and Hotak dynasty should be deleted from the list, as I can't find anything that states that the Hotaks "were Persianate", and the same goes for the Durranis, apart from this (Thomas Barfield (2010), p 125 "(...) but the Durrani elite judged itself by the standards of a Persianate political system (...)". It ain't the best source either, on top of that; the writer is a Harvard Anthropologist/Social Scientist specializing in Afghanistan, though, with a chair in the "American Institute of Afghanistan Studies"). There are, lastly, a few sources mentioning the Persian-like imitated court of some of the later Durrani rulers, who copied it from the Mughals, but does that merit for them to be included in the list? - LouisAragon (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Anthropology is fine, since it encompasses culture, which is what Persianate represents. The fact they "judged" themselves by the standard of a Persianate political system does not necessarily mean they implemented a Persianate style political system. As for the Durrani rulers copying from the Mughals, if the Durrani were in fact a Persianate, then I am sure some academic made mention of it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed it for now. If someone has any concerns over it, he/she can expand their main pages backing u the claim. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Are these edits unsourced and personal analysis (POV)?

Hello. What do you think about these edits?

• [61] Afghan Turkestan -> South Turkeststan. Not mentioned in the body of article. Looks like a pov & nationalistic term.
• [62] Why he added Turkish & Uzbek without any edit summaries? Are they really related to that article? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say, check what sources there are for the photos and what those sources state. Then check with an Administrator that knows about pictures and what can and can not be added/stated with photos. I do not know that much about the picture/photo section of Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Baghrir

Dear wikipedia user,

I have seen that you currently undid the changes on the page baghrir. I have explained in the talk page why certain additions were made, and tagged you in it. I have seen that you reverted some other pages aswell, accusing me of taking part in a edditing war. Please note that im not the one who is starting a edditing war on wikipedia. There has been 2 particular berber wikipedia users who have been sockpuppeting with many different accounts, constantly undoing information on the pages. It made me look like I'm the one who is constantly vandalising the page, but all the users are actually the same users. These users are user:JovanAndreano, user:Historydish, user:Americanpcuisine, user:AyOuBoXe, user:jasminjovo which all have been blocked by wikipedia administrators after investigations of sockpuppeting. The administrator user:Ponyo and other administrators have already taken a look at this problem back in may. Since the users have been blocked, they keep coming back every day to revert information like these users user:Saraanastasiabro, user:Narabrooklyn, user: DanaCastle, user:Billkinzie which all have been blocked aswell. I have taken the responsibility to battle this problem on some pages, reverting the information which is constantly being reverted by sockpuppets making it an endless job. The page Baghrir was aswell created by user:JovanAndreano with false information and poor sources.

You might aswell take a look at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JovanAndreano in which the user abuses multiple accounts. I actually tagged him on the talk page of the wiki page "tajine" a while ago, but he didn't react to it. I hope you understand my actions and behavior on wikipedia, none of it is meant to vandalise information, but many North-Africna pages include lots of false information with poor sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhaqiha (talk • contribs) 19:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have seen an IP making the exact same edits as yours over multiple articles. It is extremely clear you are here on a anti-Berber agenda.

As for the Baghrir article, an IP made the removal[63], claiming "not sourced".

• http://www.latimes.com/la-fo-ramadan-baghrir-recipe-20150629-story.html
• http://www.mastercook.com/app/recipe/WebRecipeDetails?recipeId=3246528
  

These appear to be the sources that do not exist. Is this IP you? Said IP has also, according to Kuru, used as a reference a site which is a Wikipedia mirror site and added it to North African Arabs.[64] AND, copy and pasted information from somewhere to Wikipedia, also according to Kuru.[65]

It would seem to me you are disruptive in your editing. Logging out to continue your edit warring, adding Wikipedia mirror sites as references, copy & pasting, just to name a few instances.

Anything else? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Idrisids

For your information:

1- Nothing has changed on my edit, except two things: putting the right references on the right place instead of a block for all refs in the introduction & moving the origins block to a dedicated section [66]

2- The version your are putting back [67] is that of M.Bitton [68] a POV bias, instead of your own.

Regards,

--105.154.146.90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

And you have been reported for edit warring, since you either can not or will not use the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Copy-pasted content

Hi. The IP just copy-pasted content from cited sources (e.g. Britannica and others).[69] He didn't edit them, just pure copy-paste. Is it OK? --Wario-Man (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

So what should I do? Remove them or use related tag/template for that section? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

3rr on Grand Duchy of Lithuania

Hello User:Kansas Bear, on the matter concerning User:Craft27by I've submitted a report here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Busy day, Hebel? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I've seen calmer ones ;-) Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Wish admins took this stuff a bit more seriously. Heya, KB, been a while :) Kafka Liz (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I hear you. Crazy stuff. What's up Liz! :) --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

A lot and at the same time, nothing. ;) Living in Ireland now, and seldom on here, but I do like to check in now and again. How's you? Kafka Liz (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Not bad. Guess we dodged a tornado a few nights ago, no sirens or any kind of warning. HA! Got to love living in Kansas! Although, I would not mind some cold weather. :/ --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ouch. Very L Frank Baum - though I suspect you get sick of such refs. Rainy here - as always - but warm. It never gets very hot or cold here, but it is pretty damp. And green. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply

They are assuming bad faith and their edits are very POV. Have they pretended the IP is a different person? Edward321 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Foleo posted as an edit summary, "Please do not bully or intimidate IP users as you did in Roman-Persian Wars".[70] Foleo's statement was because I reverted the IP, once, and posted a 3rr tag on the IP's talk page(he had reverted LouisAragon 3 times), to which he posted a 3rr tag on my talk page.

A cursory comparison of Foleo and the IP's edits[71] shows a high level of similar editing. A more intensive comparison indicates Foleo and the IP both add "Anti-Arabism" and "Islamophobe" to articles and editor talk page(s).FoleoFoleo,Foleo,IP,IP,IP. Yeah, same person. Same agenda, same bias. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional court language used - Safavids

I had a suspicion that Georgian/Circassian/Armenian were spoken at the Safavid court, and indeed, David Blow (Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-0857716767; pp 165-166) confirms my thought. I think it should be added to the Safavid dynasty infobox, do you agree? - LouisAragon (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If the source says it, why can't you add it? Does Blow go into detail about how the languages were used? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he states that it was spoken due to the fact that there were large amounts of "gholams" (military slaves, part of the Safavid elite, similar to the Janissaries) present at the court from those three, and due to the high proportion of women in the harem from the same three aforementioned ethnicities. Furthermore, he gives Abbas I as an example of a Safavid ruler who seems to have been able to speak Georgian.

Ah, no specific reason, just wanted to tell you my finding as well :-) Thought you might find it interesting. Inb4 anther 10.000 hurr-durr IP's and "new users" geo-locating to Azerbaijan and Turkey will hop in to specifically spam remove "Armenian". Lel. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I hear you. But, hey, that is quite the find! Nice work! --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Btw, check this whenever you can. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not surprised, some people just do not get it. Wow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed... - LouisAragon (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This matter has "some" kind of twist though I think. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

He has supported said editor in the past. So....... --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Btw, this sounds familiar to me. Does it to you as well? [72] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sadly it does ring a few bells, fortunately it has been some time since I edited Qajars. Or at least it feels like it has been some time. LOL. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Lel, yeah, if any of those articles don't pop on our watchlist at least once a week, we can call that a calm week. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your well-grounded concerns, I just noted some more related stuff. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, on the Qajar page; its interesting to note that the same user (Yomagrey) canvassed user Atabey, even though the latter left the English Wiki years ago. [73]. The last person to do so was "Yalquzac". - LouisAragon (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

There's some mass WP:OR going on on this article (no surprise of course) and it seems in fact as if the whole article was fabricated on self-interpretation and imaginary tales. I recently got most of the titles cited on the page; none of those that are WP:RS state anything about a "Kurakchay treaty". - LouisAragon (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, LA. If I were you I would address the supposed sources on the talk page contrasted against what sources really state about the Treaty. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

About my edits in Walter II of Avesnes

Why reverting my contributions in this page?
Did I do something bad ? :( --Yufitran (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Just read it

Just read your message. Sorry for being late. Yup, ANI is a total waste of time, except if one wants some kind of hilarious "show process" that is firstly very time consuming and often does not yield any results as well. Especially regarding IP's. Whenever an admin tells a legit long-standing member 1 on 1 that the matter should be taken to ANI it basically, with some exceptions, just means they are not in the mood/don't want to deal with it themselves. Think we both know that well after all this time. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, just saw, as I was writing this; he already took the one way trip by himself on his own talk page. Lel... - LouisAragon (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, after ?2-3? days of his logged out rantings, apparently someone decided to resolve the issue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

KB, I just checked the Orontid dynasty article, and it turned out that the reference added by "EtienneDolet" pointing to p. 20 of Payaslian, Simon (2007). The history of Armenia : from the origins to the present (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 8. ISBN 1403974675, mentions not a single thing about the so-called possible Urartian origins of the Orontids. I removed the source and that specific content, and made some corrections per that what is supported by the overwhelming number of sources. I however vaguely remember that you once told that there is also a certain Bactrian theory regarding their origins? If yes, would you mind adding it to the section as well, per WP:NPOV? If the way that I re-wrote that part of the section isn't "NPOV" enough in your opinion (as I'm sure this change is gonna attract some *cough* "concerned" new editors) please let me know as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, judging from the bad faith, canvassing, personal attacks, and blatant ignoring of sources I had to endure in 2011, that is a midden I would just as soon avoid.

Here are the sources they ignored in 2011;

• The Middle East under Rome, by Maurice Sartre, p23. Harvard University Press.
• The royal hunt in Eurasian history, by Thomas T. Allsen, p37. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• The Cambridge history of Iran, Volume 2, by William Bayne Fisher, Ilya Gershevitch, Ehsan Yar-Shater, Peter Avery, p354.
• The Numismatic chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, by Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain),p6.

I believe the issue is the same one I encountered when I presented evidence the Ottomans used the Persian language for 500 years before switching to Ottoman Turkish.

Some people will ignore facts, even if stated by !universities!, simply because it refutes what they believe is the truth. Granted I come from a Euro-centric, mid-western, Scottish, Irish, English, French, German ancestry, so I do not have the perspective of trying to keep "pure" my ethnicity from any outside influences. "User:XXX will not allow no Persian, no Turk, no Armenian, no Azerbaijani, no Kurdish, etc, etc, in our history."

So, that being said, no amount of information will make a difference to certain editors. Their sole purpose on Wikipedia is the protection of their articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much.

Yeah, its a damn annoying (to put it polite) but rather complex issue that is more of a "mental error" than something that actually contains "logic". Its just a projection of the error in peoples minds irl, which subsequently gets projected online. That being said, its the very same reason as for why atm I'm still "mostly" (more than I'd actually like to) working on articles of this region as they're much more underdeveloped, and are so prone to impairing nonsense (e.g. sock armies, plain dorks, ethno-nationalists, "ill" people and what-not that we've seen passing by over the years), as compared to the articles of my "Euro" ancestry and background. I wish I could spend more time on history-related articles pertaining to Europe specificaly, rather than just "sometimes" making some major efforts on them and the occassional article here and there (e.g. Andrey Glebov, amongst others) but alas, unfortunately, that luxury isn't really given to me yet. Though I have to say, looking at the past 1-1,5 year, alot of history-related articles of this region (Iran/Armenia/Caucasus/Turkey/Azerbaijan) have improved in a relatively steady way. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you see btw if Hovhanisian (p 47/48) which has been added to this section says anything about so-called "Irano-Armenian" names regarding the Artaxiads? JSTOR apparently has the book.[74]. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No good. JSTOR is a book review and it is non-viewable on google books. Sorry. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Aight, I will try getting those pages from the ppl at "resource request" then. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

BUT, Amazon.com does allow a search,

• "Both the interior chronology of Moses Xorenc'i and the reading of the Armawir inscriptions are still open to considerable disagreement, but the the existence of a local Armenian dynasty, probably of Iranian origin, as indicated by both Strabo and Movses Xorenac'i as well as by the derivation of the Eruandid name, has now received additional corroboration...." -- page 47.

Which goes on to confirm the Iranian/Achaemenid origin of the Orontid dynasty.

Also, your query of the Irano-Armenian names are confirmed on page 48. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Seleucid empire manpower

I wrote a source which gave a conservative number of 49 million of the Persian empire in 480 bc. The Seleucid inherited most of the former Persian Empire lands and wad around from 312 bc to 64 bc. The population would have at least doubled in his time. Kasif the great (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not care what your opinion is. I seriously doubt Guinness is considered a reliable source. Following BRD would be best for you since all you seem to do is add contentious material based on no or unreliable sources. I would suggest you take your concerns to the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Hattin

Hello

If you look at battle of hattin number of crusader, they were 55,000 and not 20,000

Guy de lussignan was know for many time faking his stat

its time for you to understand that most of the christians stats are faked.

look at the french wikipedia version of this battle

Also for the siege of acre Garrison: 3000 killed or captured (2,700 saracen prisoners were killed by Richard Coeur de Lion.)

Richard Coeur de Lion as kill 2,700 sarasin prisionniers (captured) and like 300 child & womens

So we should precise that.

I suggest you take your concerns to the article talk page. You removed references and referenced information, whilst citing nothing but opinion. Wikipedia does not work that way. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Lel

Such a gem.[75][76]. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, from 2013, shows Azerbaijan language with an Encyclopedia Iranica reference. Here is the quote:

• "Among the Azeri poets of the 15th century mention should be made of Ḵaṭāʾi Tabrizi. He wrote a maṯnawi entitled Yusof wa Zoleyḵā, and dedicated it to the Aqqoyunlu Sultan Yaʿqub (r. 1478-90), who himself wrote poetry in Azeri Turkish." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I had seen that one before, thanks for linking. I have no doubts that the Aq Qoyunlu rulers used an Oghuz Turkic language closest to the present-day Azerbaijani language mean. However, what I don't get is the constant reinstatement of the transliteration of the article in Latin script, not only in Azerbaijani, but also in Anatolian Turkish and Turkmen. Which is what the user in question is edit warring for. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This information was removed by user:Hayk.arabaget , 25 November 2014. Who states this lie, "There wasn't anything about Azerbaijani language as an official one in Iranica online. Also we do not need Azerbaijani and Armenian names of this tribe."

Which is then changed by user:Cednel, 26 November 2014.

After Azerbaijan is re-added by an IP, user:Hayk.arabaget added citation needed tag. Ten minutes later user:Hayk.arabaget removes Azerbaijan again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Good search. That's one of the first things that needs to get fixed then. But what do you think about the transliterations in the lede? Which one should it include, and which ones should be removed (looking at the current revision)? Any transliteration in Latin script would be, for a start, ridiculous to keep. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure how that is decided. If we go according to the Safavid dynasty article then Azerbaijani should be included in the transliteration. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, such things are not "really" decided I thought initially myself as well. Such things are usually based on how many sock accounts/IP's a niche of users can bring in, lol. But, aight, I agree. I concur with the Safavid comparison. Btw, if you have the time, please share your opinion about this (related) matter on Doug's talk page. It could be of proper use in the future. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I reverted this ambiguous/weird change of sourced content btw.[77] - LouisAragon (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Kansas Bear. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- LouisAragon (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to send the other PDF file in the mail. Just sent it in the one right after. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The Great Seljuk Empire

The book has arrived in my local library and I'm reading it. Thanks for the recommendation. Excellent book, by Professor Peacock, who I know worked on the Seljuks of Rum which I read only one chapter of it. This book is part of the The Edinburgh History of the Islamic Empires, and after finishing this I might pick up some more in the future. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Mentioned concerns

More canvassing (just) resulted in this change. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

See, that's the difference, I add references/referenced information(regardless of my personal opinions*), they(Samak and his buddy Afshar Kan) are just here to promote their nationalistic/ethnic POV. Not to mention Afshar's canvassing violates AA2! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

No truer words were ever spoken. In my opinion he [Samak] is a useful, kind and helpful editor, but he succumbs way too easily to all these sockpuppet who happen to speak "dialects which are mutually intelligble to Azerbaijani or are from the same ethnicity". If he'd have genuine concerns about such matters (even just the Turcoman-->Azerbaijanis change, f.e.), he'd engage in discussions, add/cite WP:RS sources, and wouldn't resort to such odd behaviour. But alas... - LouisAragon (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a comment.[78] He's evading his block en masse. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for cluttering your talk page with information/material these days KB, but I wondered whether you could check the sources given to "back up" this part ("The Khanates were mostly ruled by Khans of Turkic (Azeri)[4] origin[5][6][7]") in the lede of this article -> Khanates of the Caucasus. I wonder whether they're WP:RS and actually back up the story, e.g. that they were "Azeri"). I know Swietochowski and Atkin are RS, but I can't view the pages in question. Thanks much - LouisAragon (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Well;

• Encyclopaedia Britannica Online: History of Azerbaijan, makes no mention of the ethnicity of the khanates.
• Russian Azerbaijan, 1905–1920 By Tadeusz Swietochowski page 272, there is no page 272 in this book.
• Russia and Iran, 1780-1828 By Muriel Atkin, Page 16-20. Pages 17-19 are unviewable and page 11 would indicate that Turcoman is considered a separate entity from Azerbaijani(at least it appears that way in her writing).
  

Given time I might be able to expand on Atkin's view, but as of right now, none of those sources support that sentence.
This sentence;

• "In a series of wars with Persia at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Russia gained the Azeri khanates north of the Araks River, which still forms the frontier between Azerbaijan and Iran." -- World and Its Peoples: Middle East, Western Asia, and Northern Africa. Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2006. ISBN 0761475710. Стр. 751.
  

Makes it sound like there are other khanates besides the Azeri ones.
Oh, and I removed that Baddeley crap source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much for the effort. I'll get to you more in depth about these findings myself as well. In the meantime, you might be interested in this. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Naimans, Tuoba and Pannonian Avars

Would you please verify [79], [80] and [81]. What do you think? --Wario-Man (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

For the Naimans:

• Man, John (2013). Genghis Khan: Life, Death, and Resurrection. p. 19-20.--Is not a reliable source.
• Morris Rossabi (2012). The Mongols: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.--No page number and I found only one reference to Naimans. Morris Rossabi is a historian of China and Central Asia who teaches courses in Inner Asian and East Asian history at Columbia.
• Frederick W. Mote (2003). Imperial China 900-1800. p. 407.---"The Naimans displayed strong Turkic characteristics and had adapted the Uighur Turkic script to their language, making them one of the few literate people among steppe nomads at that time."---Which sounds like the Naimans were Turkicized.
• Frank McLynn (2015). Genghis Khan: The Man Who Conquered the World.---No page number and this is not McLynn's area of expertise. I would avoid using this book.
• René Grousset. The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia. p. 190.--This actually supports what it references. "Mongolized Turks". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

For the Tuoba:

• Evelyn S. Rawski, Early Modern China and Northeast Asia, page 123. Reliable source. "...including the Northern Wei (386-534), found the Tuoba, a Turkic group descended from the Xianbei."
• Kang-i Sun Chang,Stephen Owen, The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, page 272. Reliable source. "The Northern Wei dynasty was founded by a Tuoba or Tabgach, a Xianbei people originally from the northeastern part of China and believed to have spoken a Turkic language."
• Charles Holcombe, The Genesis of East Asia: 221 B.C. - A.D. 907, page 132. Reliable source. "Exactly what this language was is a matter of speculation. In the opinion of Peter Boodberg, the Tuoba vocabulary was "essentially Turkish, with a certain admixture of Mongol elements"." --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

For the Pannonian Avars:

• This edit is undue weight. The Pannonian Avars article states, "The Pannonian Avars,..[...]... were a group of Eurasian nomads of unknown origins[2][3][4][5][6] during the early Middle Ages." --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much. However, I think I should allow other editors to review those articles. The reason why I asked you to verify them, is because I think both [82] and [83] have similar edits and they're interested in same topic, e.g. Turkic peoples, List of Turkic dynasties and countries, Template:History of the Turkic peoples pre-14th century. Plus, As you know, it's a common behavior among some users to do such edits. For example, when they appear and bomb the articles with their sources (ethnicity, language, background and etc). --Wario-Man (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

See this edit. In my opinion, it's some kind of overciting and pov-pushing. He changes the weight/tone of the main articles, then he adds them to those lists and other mentioned articles. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

That is to be expected. This is the atypical POV pushing editor that is not smart enough to realize "Turkic" does not mean "Turkish". It would be like assigning "Indo-European" to every ethnicity that speaks an Indo-European language! That editor, in particular, is probably a blocked user from Sweden. Sooner or later they will slip up, someone will recognize a pattern and they will be blocked for socking. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Kabyle people

Hello Kansas Bear

I just want to ask you about about something

Is this good/reliable edit ? --Aṭlas (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

IF the source supports the sentences in question, yes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

So this is reliable "Kabyle Berbers are largely Mediterranean with someNordic contribution." It seems to me like an old racial theory. --Aṭlas (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It is outdated(1939). I would not use it, if that means anything. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

But this Gentleman don't get it. --Aṭlas (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Try the talk page. Not sure where it will get you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in the mood. can you help me ?--Aṭlas (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it. I am swamped with my own research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Well as you want. --Aṭlas (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this Gentilz hom discovered a new thing "1930 is 21th century and modern enough" --Aṭlas (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Just lel

[84][85]. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I made a dig in Oxford's database to find information regarding Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher's alleged membership to the Freemasons. I think I found something, but I'm not sure whether the author is correct in his assessment. I just sent you a scan of the page in question. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sent you a reply back with a link to his curriculum. Just in case you didn't get a notification. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon:  Done [[86]] [[87]] --Aṭlas (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Could you fix this?

Ahmadilis says the dynasty was Turkish in origin, with some connection (though "presumably" does not sound very evidence based) to the Rawadids - yet Rawadid dynasty says they were Arabs in origin who became Kurdified and whose descendants continued to rule in Maragheh as the Ahbadilis. So the two article are saying different things. I don't have sources to clarify this, but I see you did some editing to the Ahmadilis article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I will check it this evening. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable references

I just want to ask you If this three references are reliables and good for Couscous.

• Spelt: Cakes, Cookies, Breads 7 Meals from the Good Grain
• Tagines & Couscous: Delicious recipes for Moroccan one-pot cooking
• Food, Cuisine, and Cultural Competency for Culinary, Hospitality, and Nutrition Professionals

I want to use them if it's possible. --Aṭlas (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Food history is way outside my area of study. Might I suggest Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted to know your opinion. Best Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing War

I guess I screwed up on the House of Montlhery article. I was trying to redirect it and couldn't get the redirect to work. So, I repeatedly deleted what I had done and tried over again. I didn't realize that would trigger an Edit War warning. But it wasn't an Edit War, it was just me. Sorry.

Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Houari Boumediène

I added some referenced content in this article (this is my edit) from (The Encyclopaedia of Islam 3rd ed). I want your opinion about this reference, because I know that You have experience in such matters. My question is: Is this a convenient reference for the article ? Best Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Aṭlas (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

is this guy a reliable historian?

hello.check this pleas https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomb_of_Cyrus&diff=747118190&oldid=744112441 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.222.31.49 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Eliot Crawshay-Williams (September 4, 1879 – May 11, 1962), was a British author, army officer, and Liberal Party politician
• John Struys, The perillous and most unhappy voyages of John Struys Through Italy, Greece, Lifeland, Muscovia, Tartary, Media, Persia, East-India, Japan, and other places in Europe, Africa and Asia.
  

No to both. One is a politician and the other is some outdated primary source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think the second is the dutch traveler "Jan Janszoon Struys". I can't find anything about ibn battuta or any other travelers in pages:231–232 from the mentionned book "Across Persia" and this gentleman "Eliot Crawshay-Williams" wasn't a historian. It seems that this user translated this paragraph from the persian wikipedia without any self research. --Aṭlas (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

People like you makes persons want to get away from Wikipedia and look for accurate information anywhere except here.

I really want to clarify this Roman issue but people like you don't let me, so sad. Common people may think that byzantine empire is a different state when in fact is a despective name for the medieval Roman Empire. That needs to be pointed out. But ok, continue misinforming people. I'm not attacking you personally I don't know you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A r m i n i u s (talk • contribs) 23:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Try taking your so-called concerns to the article talk pages. Before you get blocked for your personal attacks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• "Common people may think that byzantine empire is a different state when in fact is a ??despective?? name for the medieval Roman Empire.[...].But ok, continue misinforming people."

Instead of trying to act like you know something, why don't you read the Byzantine Empire article. Note the opening sentence;

• "The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in the East during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople."
  

Every link that says Byzantine Empire leads to that article. So, either, you are willfully ignorant or you are a blocked user back to settle a score.

• " I just want to help with a harmful misconception."

Harmful? LMAO. Try using the article talk page since you are so certain your opinion should be enforced. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way

I was reading the disruptive editing article and I found something that really made me think about you.

(If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.)

I'm not a vandal. I just want to help with a harmful misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A r m i n i u s (talk • contribs) 23:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Consider this your final warning. Edit warring and arbitrarily changing Byzantine to "Eastern Roman Empire", throughout numerous articles, is disruptive editing. Continue your nonsense at your own peril. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

IP Historian

This IP, who claims to be "a historian",[88] changed some content here in the lede and added one outdated source to it, as well as one dubious source. He tried to add the same content earlier to it as well.[89]. Following a brief dig, I found The Encyclopedia of Islam (p. 821) which pretty much considers them to be a subgroup of the Lurs; "Lur -- an Iranian people living in the mountains in southwestern Persia. As in the case of the Kurds, the principal link among the four branches of the Lurs (Mamasani, Kuhghilu'i, Bakthiari, and Lur proper) is that of language." I suggest reverting the edit in question, adding the source to it, and changing that sentence to "The Bakhtiari are a subgroup of the Lurs. They speak the Bakhtiari dialect, a southwestern Iranian dialect, belonging to the Lurish language." Or something like that. Your opinion? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, the so-called "historian", made quite a few mistakes that no real historian would make. The author of "The Last of the Khans", iUniverse self-published, was not written by Alireza Bakhtiari, but by Ali Morteza Samsam Bakhtiari. Neither of them are historians. "History of Persia", that the IP "historian" copied from the self-published book(page 19) and failed to list the author, was written by Percy Sykes, who is not an historian. So both so-called sources are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia standards. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Navarre talk

Hi Kansas, how are you? With re to this talk section, I can not access the source provided. It would be appreciated if you could confirm that the information on Mozarabic language (Harvey, p 124) provided by the ever-mutating-editor-this-time IP 173.238.79.44 in the Infobox is actually true. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I am unable to view that page. However, I am not sure what the IP is trying to prove with that particular quote;

• "but in general, Muslims in the rest of Spain spoke the local varieties of Romance...the fact that the Muslims of Aragon, for example, did not from the Middle Ages onward speak an Arabic vernacular did not mean that during that period their written language was not Arabic."
  

Compared to what Harvey, page 125,

• "In the independent kingdom of Navarre, the situation was different again. This area provides us with a clear set of specimen texts, limited in number because Islam was brought to a particularly sudden end there in 1515. We can witness fully trained ulama(Islamic scholars) publicly exercising the functions of their offices, drawing up Arabic documents carry Arabic signatures, and this almost right up to the date of the conversion. What the Muslim folk there spoke was Navarrese. Their written language was Arabic."
  

So we have established that the Muslims in Navarre, pre-1515, wrote in Arabic. I see no one making any comment about it being a spoken language.

Then the IP goes on some off topic rant, "With regards to the source presented here from Harvey, it doesn't state that Andalusian Arabic was spoken, only that a few Islamic scholars who wrote in Classical Arabic." Which is not what the source states, "What the Muslim folk there spoke was Navarrese. Their written language was Arabic." Unless the IP can focus on the real facts and refrain from off-topic rants, there will be no reason to continue your discussion with them. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to read the rest of the book besides that page, and the excerpt specifies that Arabic was only written. Every source shows that when writing in Arabic, scholars wrote almost universally in Classical Arabic, just as today they write almost overwhelmingly in Modern Standard Arabic and not in the mutually unintelligible regional varieties of Arabic.

In any case, you will have noticed that I am not disputing the inclusion of Arabic as a written or formal language under the "languages" of the Kingdom of Navarre in the article (after 1118, anyway). My main contention was that we should also include Mozarabic, which was opposed (and reverted) without reason by the user above. Mozarabic was spoken in the lands of the Kingdom of Navarre, and this is supported by the source from Harvey, because it states Romance languages were the languages spoken by the small Muslim minority there, specifically Navarrese, which itself is actually a form of Mozarabic. It originated from Mozarabic prior to becoming distinctly the Navarro-Aragonese language, as it was a Pyrenean dialect of Mozarabic, which is why the language is classified as Pyrenean-Mozarabic to this very day. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

"The language was not defined by clear-cut boundaries, but rather it was a continuum of the Romance language spoken on the stretch extending north of the Muslim realms of the Ebro, under the influence of Mozarabic and Basque, towards the Pyrenees."

- Elvira, Javier. (2008). "Reinos y Dialectos en la Edad Media Ibérica: La Construcción de la Identidad; Homenaje a Juan Ramón Lodares". p.523 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.79.44 (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

OK?

• "You need to read the rest of the book besides that page, and the excerpt specifies that Arabic was only written."

Excuse me? Where have I stated anyone in the Kingdom of Navarre spoke Arabic? Where has Iñaki LL stated it was spoken? You have decided to rant that Arabic was not spoken in the Kingdom of Navarre, ignoring what the source actually says and editing your OR into the article.

And unless you can give a quote from Reinos y Dialectos en la Edad Media Ibérica: La Construcción de la Identidad; Homenaje a Juan Ramón Lodares, spare me the quote from another Wikipedia article, since Wikipedia can not be used to reference other Wikipedia articles.

Oh, and this quote;

• "...but in general, Muslims in the rest of Spain spoke the local varieties of Romance...the fact that the Muslims of Aragon, for example, did not from the Middle Ages onward speak an Arabic vernacular did not mean that during that period their written language was not Arabic."

Does not support Mozarabic being spoken/used/written in the Kingdom of Navarre and is your own interpretation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As I suspected, WP:OR to make a point by an IP disruptive editor with roots in another username, getting here by means of tracing other editors. And clear alteration of sources, as it is his customary way. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I don`t know what your problems are here. Every source I mentioned above is taken directly from the actual sources. You notably excluded the section where they specifically state that that the Muslim minority in the lands re-taken by the Kingdom of Navarre especially spoke Navarrese or Mozarabic (same language, with the former developing from the latter):

As for the quote from Reinos y Dialectos en la Edad Media Ibérica: La Construcción de la Identidad; Homenaje a Juan Ramón Lodares, it is from p. 523: [90] "The language was not defined by clear-cut boundaries, but rather it was a continuum of the Romance language spoken on the stretch extending north of the Muslim realms of the Ebro, under the influence of Mozarabic and Basque, towards the Pyrenees." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.79.44 (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, that quote is taken from the Wikipedia article Navarro-Aragonese. Which I also said, "a Wikipedia article can not be used to reference other Wikipedia articles". That link to the book, ?wrong volume?, does not show Mozarabic, nor does a search for "Mozarabic" result in anything.
AND, since you have chosen to ignore my questions;

• "Where have I stated anyone in the Kingdom of Navarre spoke Arabic? Where has Iñaki LL stated it was spoken?"
  

...therefore, unless you care to start responding directly I see no reason to continue to respond to you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not questioning that you did not state Arabic was spoken in Navarre, and I already said I am not raising that as an issue. I am only contending for the inclusion of Mozarabic, from which Navarrese was originally a dialect of and developed from. The source does have Mozarabic stated, from p.523. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 10:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• "I am only contending for the inclusion of Mozarabic, from which Navarrese was originally a dialect of and developed from. The source does have Mozarabic stated, from p.523."

You have no idea what the source states, since it is unviewable even from the link you provided. If you are contending the quote from a Wikipedia article is reliable, think again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kansas, sorry to come back, the IP is giving a nag, what he actually intends really. Unfortunately I do not have access to the book, it would be appreciated if you let me know that the page 125 states that Arabic was used in Navarre only after 1118. At any rate, I seriously doubt that place names there (even some streams) originated there after 1118, but that is another question now. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing on page 125 of Harvey's book stating 1118. You should ask for a quote(source & page number) that specifically states 1118 and Arabic, else the IP is back to giving their interpretation of information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! He has been blocked for a couple of days. However, he may be back again in Reconquista with another username. The shamelessness of his OR / altered sources is a matter of big concern for its recurrence in WP, no wonder productive editors are abandoning the EN WP. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

About some references

Is this reliable references Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups around the World, 2nd Edition: Ethnic and National Groups around the World, The Peoples of Africa: An Ethnohistorical Dictionary and Les Berbères et le makhzen dans le sud du Maroc; essai sur la transformation politique des Berbères sédentaires (groupe chleuh) for this article ?

And if you have time can you check the revision history of this article to confirm the reliability and the validity of the interpretation of the references. Kind regards --Aṭlas (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources appear reliable. Have not had the chance to check the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your response. Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Tirgil34 and PavelStaykov

• Tirgil34 (talk · contribs)
• PavelStaykov (talk · contribs)

Hi. I saw you've requested a PP for Xionites. Don't you think PavelStaykov and those IPs are related to team Tirgil34? PavelStaykov targeted many Eurasian groups like Huns, Massagetae, Yuezhi, Xionites and etc. Just like Tirgil34, he uses turkicworld.org content as source. That turkicworld.org is blacklisted now. But he still copy-pastes them. Plus, he's a similar Turkic pov-pusher. For example, check IP-hoppers/IP-socks edits on Yuezhi. He uses Tirgil34's trademark (Türkic and Türk instead of Turkic and Turk), direct copy-pasted content from Tirgil34's website (turkicworld.org). --Wario-Man (talk) 09:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wario-Man:, @Kansas Bear:, as far as i remember, user PavelStaykov was anti-Turkic. Staykov's ips are/were from Bulgaria, if i am not wrong. And there was an another Bulgarian ip(s) edit-warring with PavelStaykov. You may be confused these two edit-warriors( one is pro-Turkic and one is anti-Turkic), since both of them are from the same location(Bulgaria). 46.221.220.195 (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@46.221.220.195: Yes, both of them are from Bulgaria. I think they play WP:GHBH to confuse other editors. Actually, the one who always write anti-Turkic rants in his edit summaries, is the one who inserts pro-Turkic povs on articles. This is a Tirgil34's trademark behavior. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

the situation is not that simple dude, and life is not black and white. Instead of assuming that someone is trying to confuse you, why don't you assume that someone is making an attempt to improve these articles? An attempt that you have cockblocked by deleting content supported by multiple academic sources.[91] Not all editors are playing your stupid games who is ip-hopper or who is pro-/anti-turkic, понимаеш? I can only advice you to study the subject on hand before deleting information from the articles. Thank you for your understanding.

/The ip-hopper: --46.229.227.121 (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC) /

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Needs your opinion

Would you please write your comment here? Talk:Persian_Empire#Issues I think that article needs re-writing and some sources. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Another one, Ağ Qoyunlu: [92] --Wario-Man (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the belated response, been rather busy.

As for "Persian Empire", it appears to have become a nationalistic nonsense list page.

The article/page originally was a dab page. Which was a more neutral, productive article/page.

As for naming of the Ağ Qoyunlu article, Tiptoethrutheminefield seems to have supplied relevant information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kansas Bear. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Ottoman Algeria

Hello Kansas Bear

There is a user, who's introducing a big amount of content and removing the ancient lead without any concineous. Can you take a look at his edits if it's possible? Regards. --Aṭlas (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries about my stalker. As for Kayble20 your best move it to start a discussion on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

C. Toumanoff

Apart from these four sources, that were blatantly deleted on the article,[93][94][95]

• Allsen, Thomas T. (2011). The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0812201079. p. 37. quote = "The Orontid dynasty of Armenia (ca. 401-200), whose ruling house was of Achaemenid origin, originally administered the territory as satraps and later as independent kings."
• Sartre, Maurice (2005). The Middle East Under Rome. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674016835. p. 23 quote = "The Commagene kings claimed to be descended from the Orontids, a powerful Iranian family that had ruled the area during the Achaemenid period. They were related to the Achaemenids who had built a kingdom (...)".
• Babaie, Sussan.; Grigor, Talinn. Persian Kingship and Architecture: Strategies of Power in Iran from the Achaemenids to the Pahlavis. (2015). I.B.Tauris. ISBN 978-1848857513. p. 80. quote = "Iranian culture deeply influenced Armenia, and Iranian dynasties ruled Armenia during several important periods, including the Orontids (c. sixth century - c. early second century BCE) and Arsacids (54-428 CE)."
• TIGRAN II. Garsoian, N. (2005). Encyclopaedia Iranica. quote = "Tigran (Tigranes) II was the most distinguished member of the so-called Artašēsid/Artaxiad dynasty, which has now been identified as a branch of the earlier Eruandid [Orontid] dynasty of Iranian origin attested as ruling in Armenia from at least the 5th century B.C.E."

...I actually just found out that Toumanoff (p. 278) holds the exact same view in his The Orontids of Armenia study, which appeared as part III of his well known Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Georgetown, 1963). Here's what's stated on p. 278: "The eponym's praeonemen Orontes is as Iranian as the dynasty itself, derived from the Avestan auraund/aurvant ('mighty,' 'hero') and related to the Pehlevi arvand." Didn't know that. Thought you might be interested (in case you hadn't already seen it). - LouisAragon (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not know that. Thanks for the information, LA! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Always welcome. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Need some help

Hello, Kansas Bear. I recommend you to add the following two pages related to the last Russo-Turkish war to your watchlist: Battle of Sarikamish and Caucasus Campaign. Recently, a newly created Turkish account was used there to inflate the number of Russian casualties in the Caucasus Campaign and downplay the strength and casualties of the Ottomans by all means possible. Your help is very much appreciated. FullertonCA (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A note

As I had added some of that important information concerning Ibn Hanbal, I ask to remove it temporarily because I am writing an essay on the matter -- once, I am done we can re-put it. Otherwise, the teacher will think I copied from wikipedia. Please do understand! Your help is appreciated!Megalodon34 (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ziryab

Hello Kansas Bear (merry christmas ;))

Can you take a look at Ziryab? There is tens of references in this page. If you have time can you check the reliability of this references ? Regards--Aṭlas (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not a difficult task, if you were interested in learning.

• Check the author's credentials(historian, journalist, writer, etc).
• Does the author's credentials correspond with the subject matter in the book, journal, etc.

• If not then the book, journal, etc, can not be considered a reliable source.
• Example, (Ruiz, Ana (1960). Vibrant Andalusia: the spice of life in southern Spain.) This particular source is being used to support that Ziryab was Kurdish. Ana Ruiz completed her master's degree in cognitive development at Federal University of Pernambuco and obtained a doctoral degree in developmental psychology from Cornell University. Therefore, Ruiz can not be considered a reliable source for Ziryab who lived during the 8th-9th centuries CE.

• Check the publisher. Is the publisher considered a reliable source?

If not, then the book, journal, etc, can not be considered a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for This answer. Kind Regards--Aṭlas (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

Hello Kansas Bear: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Doug Weller talk 15:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, Kansas Bear! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Aṭlas (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Nomination of Raoul III of Valois for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raoul III of Valois is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raoul III of Valois until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kansas Bear!

Happy New Year!

Kansas Bear,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Wario-Man (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Kansas Bear!

Happy New Year!

Hello Kansas Bear:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Aṭlas (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Barnstar

		Home-Made Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to you Kansas Bear, as a sign of appreciation for everything you did in difficult topic areas. Keep up the good work! You were the first editor with whom I interacted on en.wiki during the first dispute I had with somebody here some seven years ago. Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Conservapedia - how to deflect phony editing disputes

Dear Kansas - I am contacting more or less at random, but based in part on your articles on European history. I don't want to use my established username - my contribs are under observation by a group of "conservapediots" - i.e. Wikipedia editors who follow the precepts of the online Conservapedia.

Most of the few articles I have reedited are on US history, ante bellum period, related to the political parties. I've written the narratives for a number of articles including the Bank War, Election of 1844, and I am currently editing Missouri Compromise. (I don't want to hyperlink these).

I was recently kicked off Wiki for 48 hours for posting warning not to engage me in "pseudo"-sockpuppet assaults. The problem is that during the years that I've been posting major, well-sourced articles, I have not been engaged by a single editor who supports my work. It would appear that I am on a blacklist. When this phony "edit" war at the Bank War was started, I was warned that by other editors that I was obligated to field these entirely unserious and tendentious complaints about minutiae related to the article. The "edit war" went on for weeks, and I was accused of being a sockpuppet.

My question is this: to what extent do you think that Wikipedia is infiltrated my editors from Conservapedia? What impact has this had on your own work, and what do we do about it? --68.107.181.155 (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

• No idea.
  
• None.
  
• I have seen no evidence to which I should be doing anything. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Another hoax?

So far all edits made by the user in question were pseudo-historical fabrications, not covered by any source. He has created one article as well (very first edit). Speedy, I think? - LouisAragon (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well a search of;

• Iran: Empire of the Mind, Michael Axworthy, no page number

Ardehians- zero hits

Ardahvans- zero hits

Ardehis- zero hits

• The Muslim Conquest of Persia, A.I. Akram, no page number

No viewable edition available.

• Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, Kaveh Farrokh, no page number

No view edition available.

Unless Ozymaxes can provide evidence, then the article is a hoax. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Timurid empire and its lead section (edits by IP-hopper)

Hi. This IP-hopper changed the accepted lead and he says current revision is misleading.[96][97]. I'm sure he's one of those blocked sockmasters (per his IP-range and edit style), but is Persianate Turco-Mongol empire misleading? Or is his changes constructive? I think his changes are pointless and unnecessary. Persianate links to Persianate society and that article is clear about the term. So should we keep older revision or accept his revision? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Said IP can start a discussion on the talk page to find a consensus for the lead. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What is your opinion about his edits? Do you think his edits are OK or not? --Wario-Man (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No. They are not ok. Why relegate Persianate to the second sentence when the culture of this empire is so heavily supported by references and referenced information? The extreme bias of the IP is telling when they use the term "Turco-Mongol" twice in the first two sentences of the article!

If we compared the lead of the Timurid Empire to the lead of the Seljuk Empire article:

• "The Seljuk Empire or Great Seljuk Empire, was a medieval Turko-Persian Sunni Muslim empire, originating from the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks."
• "The Timurid Empire (Persian: تیموریان‎‎), self-designated as Gurkani, was a Persianate Turco-Mongol empire...."

Nothing in the article explains how the Timurid empire is "Turco-Mongol". There is nothing in the lead to explain the religion of the empire, as compared to the Seljuk Empire article.

Maybe something more like;

• "The Timurid Empire (Persian: تیموریان‎‎), self-designated as Gurkani, was a Sunni Muslim Persianate empire, founded by Timur a warlord of Turco-Mongol origin."

or....

• "The Timurid Empire (Persian: تیموریان‎‎), self-designated as Gurkani, was a Turko-Persian Sunni Muslim empire, founded by Timur a warlord of Turco-Mongol origin."

Both can be supported by references and properly reflect the influences on this empire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. So please rewrite it because I think your suggestion is better than the current revision. Plus, this article is old and your contribution(s) (content + more references) will improve it for sure. Regards. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ibn tumart

What do you think about this new user edits, especially this two edits [98], [99]. He's using primary sources (ديوان المبتدأ والخبر في تاريخ العرب والبربر ومن عاصرهم من ذوي الشأن الأكبر , Mafākhir al Barbar......). Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The two sources:

• "Ibn Kallikan. p.205 Biographical Dictionary VOL. III.
• "Bigelow Merriman, Roger. The rise of the Spanish Empire. Archive.org. The Macmillan Company, 1918."

both appear viable, though dated. What do modern sources state? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That he was a pure masmuda Berber, and the sharifian lineage is just a genealogical fiction (The Encyclopaedia of Islam edition 1 and 2, the cambridge history of africa, Encyclopédie de l’islam (the french version of EI)....), Encyclopedie Berbère..... EI2 p:958 "His father belonged to the Harg̲h̲a and his mother to the Masakkāla, both of which are divisions of the Maṣmūda tribal group and there can be no doubt that he was a pure Berber despite the various S̲h̲arīfian genealogies attributed to him"--Aṭlas (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What is your opinion? What is the reliable version is it my last version or the current version. + this account looks suspicious this is his first day and he already know how to open "a dispute resolution request"! --Aṭlas (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow. I had not checked my copy of "The Encyclopaedia of Islam" that is on my computer. Well, if the EoI says that, I would not argue with it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you participate in this discussion Talk:Ibn Tumart ? Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion will not end with him. He's using primary sources. Cplakidas Explained to him what is primary sources, but he don't want to understand. I wasted all my day in a Byzantine discussion (I'm so busy with my university exams.....). Can you please participate in the discussion? (as I really like your way in discussing things). Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about my arguments here? I was waiting for you a response, but it seems that you don't have time. Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you, Walraisid and Constantine have things well in hand. I am not sure what more I could contribute. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Your analysis of the reliability of sources! and some remarks will be good. --Aṭlas (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you really think the secondary sources I provided are not reliable ? (see, if you want, a "summary" at the end of this part). Fulgery (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Better yet, please explain your reasoning when you ignore a source like The Encyclopaedia of Islam, written and edited by academics that specialize in the field of Islam, Islamic studies, Islamic history, etc.

And you want to use, most likely because it says what you want,

• Encyclopedia of Africa, Almohads, page 94-95,

by, Thomas K Park, Anthropology and Agricultural Economics.

Editor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., Afro-American Studies department at Yale.

Editor, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Philosophy.

Compared to:

• The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. III.

Editor, B.LEWIS, He earned his PhD in the history of Islam.

Editor, V. L. MENAGE, Chair of Turkish/Ottoman history in the University of London

Editor, CH. PELLAT, professor of Arabic

Editor, J. SCHACHT, professor of Arabic and Islam

Clear enough? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't ignore these sources, Kansas Bear. On the contrary I accept them but I would like to add the other point of view.

I added reliable secondary sources to the "point 2" of my summary at the end of this part, please take a look at it. One question is : Do my sources and arguments justify the adding of "Arab" along with "Berber" in the lead ?

Also, you said about other sources that I had provided "both appear viable, though dated.", but I would like to have your opinion on this one please :

The « author of a number of influential books on Muslim history and the modern development of Islam » Syed Ameer Ali :

"In the year 514 of the Hegira, a man of the name of Mohammed, surnamed Ibn Tumart, (Abu Abdullah Mohammed, son of Abdullah, son of Tumart, an Alide, descended from Hassan I) a native of Sus in Western Africa, appeared among the Berbers inhabiting the vast chain of mountains which intersects Mauritania. He was an Arab by descent, but belonged by adoption to one of the Berber tribes." (A short History of the Saracens, Chapter XXXIX The Almohades, 1916)

Constantine didn't accept it saying "they only deal with the matter tangentially and probably use "Arab" as a cultural label; certainly they are not serious arguments against a host of expert sources that address the issue directly and specifically." I respect his views but, Syed Ameer Ali says explicitly "an Arab by descent" and "descended from Hassan I" so it's not a cultural label, and isn't the author reputable enough in this subject (see his bio) to grant him the fact that he has done a serious research before relating the Arab lineage ? Fulgery (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Why should I consider a source written in 1898, over a modern source written and edited by the leading academics in this field?

• ".. to grant him the fact that he has done a serious research before relating the Arab lineage?"

You mean what you have decided NOT to grant the academics that write and edit The Encyclopaedia of Islam? Especially this particular source that specifically states, "His father belonged to the Hargha and his mother to the Masakkala, both of which are divisions of the Masmuda tribal group and there can be no doubt that he was a pure Berber despite the various Sharifian genealogies attributed to him." Why do you refuse to use your own logic(that, "..[they] have done a serious research before relating the Arab lineage") towards this?

Here are three more academics...

• The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, page 242. Gerhard Böwering, Patricia Crone, Mahan Mirza. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

How that ? I just told you that my proposition accepts and includes the two views and the difference of opinions. Perhaps I did not express myself properly. Fulgery (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No. You just keep ignoring what I have said.

Using your own logic statement, "grant him[them] the fact that he has done a serious research before relating the Arab lineage"

Would not the editors and writers of EoI and Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought have done the same thing and in the case of EoI have concluded that, "His father belonged to the Hargha and his mother to the Masakkala, both of which are divisions of the Masmuda tribal group and there can be no doubt that he was a pure Berber despite the various Sharifian genealogies attributed to him."?

Your own logic when applied to this situation supports that these academics, in the course of "serious research", read Syed Ameer Ali's book, checked the sources, and applied modern historiography to get their fact(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The point of view that I'm defending is not "considering an opinion over another" but "considering in the article two different opinions" if they both are based on reliable sources.

As for Syed Ameer Ali, I just related to you the reasons why I didn't understand why was not considered to be a reliable source. The "serious scholar" is just to explain why I consider him to be reliable. I then wanted to know if you considered him reliable and gave you his wikipedia's page link. That's all. You do not have to answer if you do not want. The fact that others had a contrary opinion had nothing to do with my question and is not hurting my point of view... Fulgery (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

A perfect example of ignoring everything I have said. We are done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Check this out

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ibn Tumart#RfC: Should the article gives weight to the mahdist/sharifian claims. . Aṭlas (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not a vandal. I just want truth to prevail sir.

Sorry, but you have nearly accused me of vandalism, publishing a warning note on my talk page. WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BE A NEW EDITOR? I'm a new editor, and might do some mistakes at editing, but the exclusive reason I started editing, not long ago, is due to the amount of historical lack of information on certain themes, or sometimes, even worse, the manipulated and false imperialistic point of view on history, which was still fashionable for instance on the 20th century Francoist Spain, and after 40 years of military dictature, the historical fallacies on detriment of truth had been widely spread, and apparently still promoted by some, but shouldn't be present on the wikipedia. Sad but true. Some of my editions with references have been reverted to another uncited version, it's true my note on the Albigensian crusade didn't have a quote, but linked to articles which give details. Anyway I feel also happy to say that other users support the truth, and some of my editions on other articles have been supported and re-edited by other users when reverted by imperialist liars. Finally and hopefully the truth prevails. If you take a minute to look at my editings, which include a translation of an entire article about a medieval manuscript, you will see I always try my best at bringing accurate cited historical information, so readers will take acknowledgement not only of the historical events, but also of their contemporary historical background. So, no means to make you waste your precious time, but... why did you erase the note about Peter III of Aragon? I explained who was Peter the Catholic, who died in the Albigensian Crusade, fighting against the crusaders, defending his vassal lords of Occitania and Roussillon, and himself Lord of Montpellier since he married Marie of Montpellier in 1204... As soon as 1209 the crusaders were starring the Massacre at Béziers. My note about Peter II is totally ON-TOPIC and verifiable. WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO KNOW that the King who fought and died defending his vassal lords accused of Christian Cathar heresy had been not long awarded with the exclusive Papal award Rex Catholicissimus before giving his life fighting against the crusaders? Peter wasn't heretic, and was never accused of heresy of course, but nevertheless he defended his vassals til death. Nowadays no-one outside the Catalan-speaking Countries, except from scholars, has heard about the Crown of Aragon (union of the Kingdom of Aragon, coastless, with the Counts of Barcelona, with important ports on the Mediterranean and the most powerful county of the Principality of Catalonia); nor about its king Peter the Catholic, (awarded with the Papal title of Rex Catholicissimus some years before whilst fighting the Moors on the context of the Reconquista, his most important triumph, just a year before he died fighting the crusaders, was the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212), who was as well lord of Montpellier from 1204 by marriage. Most people haven't heard about those, and it doesn't seem important, but at the time of the Albigensian Crusade, the Crown of Aragon was a growing power. The crusaders had already the bad fame of sacking Constantinople twice during the fourth crusade in 1204. IT IS RELEVANT INFORMATION, so people understand exactly what it was: a genocide led and promoted by France (casually the Dolphin of France was married to Blanche of Castile, being the Crown of Castile natural rival of the Crown of Aragon, who held control of the Mediterranean Sea coast and its trade). Another Castilian, Domingo de Guzmán, who had been an ambassador of the king Alfonso VIII of Castile in Denmark and had visited Rome for State matters around 1205, formed in Occitania the Order of the Friars Preachers in order to eradicate the so-called Catharism heresy. As it has its own chapter in the article, this crusade was a genocide. But furthermore, a french conquest of the lands which were vassal to the Crown of Aragon, undermining its power in the area. Please, I beg you stop erasing information. Let's leave readers decide if it's worth the information or not. Don't you think so? LEAST CALL ME A VANDAL, sir, it is TOTALLY UNFAIR... Ethra2016 (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethra2016 (talk • contribs)

And why not take this to the article talk page? Where is the source that states Peter II of Aragon was given the title "Rex Catholicissimus"? Have you missed these particular issues?? Considering, the article is about the Cathars and not Peter II of Aragon, any specialized titles concerning him are irrelevant to the subject. As for it being a genocide or not, as I have said before, take your concerns to the article talk page. FYI, Peter III of Aragon did not die at Muret. Anything else? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sir, Peter II of Aragon did die at the battle of Muret on 12 September 1213, fighting the crusaders indeed. NOT Peter III as you erroneously wrote (who was his grandson). Peter II was indeed the first king of the Crown of Aragon to be crowned directly by the Pope at Rome (which not many kings at that time did), entrusting his realm to the Papacy and making the oath to defend the Christian faith. I haven't found references that say he was awarded with the title Rex Catholicissimus specifically though. Another article in the wiki says so, but no references neither, sorry. Apparently all an error. I'll further search for references, if any, and meanwhile have erased the unreferenced information on the other article in which the misinterpreted information was edited. Anyway, Peter II was a recognized christian king, crowned by the Pope, and he opposed the crusade anyway, and even died defending the so-called cathar lords of Occitania. I think it's worth saying, don't you think so? I still think is on-topic, furthermore, he was Lord of Montpellier (neighbouring area of the attacked territories of Occitania) since 1204, when he married Maria of Montpellier. Many specialized scholars agree the Albigensian crusade was a political strategy basically held by France (dynastically allied with Castile) to conquest the south and undermine the influence of the Crown of Aragon. Please, can you comment on my talk page and comment or revert your note which treats me as a vandal, it's totally not true and unfair Sir. Maybe I should have brought the subject to the talk page, and sorry about copying an error on other page, which I though was referenced, but was not... my confusion on that, sorry, BUT he was indeed crowned at Rome by the Pope Innocent III himself, and THAT is referenced, but not the Papal title itself. Well, no one is perfect, sorry. I'm new, I learnt. Thank you for all together making Wikipedia better.Ethra2016 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm.

• "So, no means to make you waste your precious time, but... why did you erase the note about Peter III of Aragon? I explained who was Peter the Catholic, who died in the Albigensian Crusade, fighting against the crusaders, defending his vassal lords of Occitania and Roussillon, and himself Lord of Montpellier since he married Marie of Montpellier in 1204... As soon as 1209 the crusaders were starring the Massacre at Béziers. My note about Peter II is totally ON-TOPIC and verifiable. WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO KNOW that the King who fought and died defending his vassal lords accused of Christian Cathar heresy had been not long awarded with the exclusive Papal award Rex Catholicissimus before giving his life fighting against the crusaders? Peter wasn't heretic, and was never accused of heresy of course, but nevertheless he defended his vassals til death."

FYI, I have not edited Peter III of Aragon since 2010 and this statement appears to be your words. My comment was a simple correction, which instead;

• "NOT Peter III as you erroneously wrote."

So more like you erroneously wrote.

• "Please, can you comment on my talk page and comment or revert your note which treats me as a vandal, it's totally not true and unfair Sir."

It is a edit-warring warning nothing more. The word "vandal" is not present in that warning. You are the only one that keeps mentioning vandal/vandalism.

• "Maybe I should have brought the subject to the talk page,"

Which is why things should be talked out on the article talk page.

• "...and sorry about copying an error on other page, which I though was referenced, but was not... my confusion on that, sorry, BUT he was indeed crowned at Rome by the Pope Innocent III himself, and THAT is referenced, but not the Papal title itself."

I know, I wrote the reference.

• "I think it's worth saying, don't you think so? I still think is on-topic, furthermore, he was Lord of Montpellier..."

No. The information should be clear and direct(therefore, Peter II of Aragon), give the reason why he was in southern France(to protect his vassal).

Why did you add all this information, that has nothing to do with Peter III of Aragon? AND, the information has nothing to do with the section to which you added it:Youth and Succession. Not to mention, no source linking this information's relevance to Peter III. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

-... why did you erase the note about Peter III of Aragon?... -Sorry, I meant the note ON Peter III article (about Peter II), a misunderstanding, only that. Thank you for your time, sorry about the whole thing. PeaceEthra2016 (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Connection between Battle of Chaldiran and First Battle of Panipat

Please explain why the reference to Battle of Chaldiran was removed from First Battle of Panipat. The Battle of Chaldiran was one of the first in Asia to make heavy use of artillery and muskets to win a battle. Babur acquired his artillery and muskets from Ottoman empire and learned the tactics of amassing firepower behind the protection of carts, which was used in both First Battle of Panipat and Battle of Khanwa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Rawadid dynasty

Hello Kansas Bear

I just want to let you know that I reverted this page to the 22 February 2015 version. This was the most reliable and NPOV version. Regards --Aṭlas (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not sure why that article attracts so much attention. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Son of Tempel

This "new" account's editorial pattern looks extremely much to me like that of an old acquiantance (not sure whether your fine with that label here though, sorry) of yours. Proficiency, target articles, "interests", specific information removals, etc. all bear a striking resemblance imho. At least from what I can remember. All in all, definetely not a new user. Your thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No offense taken. I never had a problem with Qara Xan's editing until they called me a "Turkophobe". Then Qara Xan received a response in a like manner. Anyway, I am digressing, on Qara Xan's talk page there is a comment about similarities to RussianDewey. You might check that as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Apparently RussianDewey is linked to Alexis Ivanov. Do you think Alexis was Qara Xan? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm quite sure about JFT/QX (100000% sure at least that he's not a new user). There are multiple similarities bewteen Qara xan and RussianDewey/Alexis, however, there are a few differences as well. Having said that; comparing RD with Alexis Ivanov purely based on WP:HERE-like points and overal "attitude" would probably show quite a lot of differences as well, yet they turned out to be pretty much clear cut CU confirmed. Anyways, just made this. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi, Kansas Bear! I've just noticed that user Geotem has been waging an edit war in the Battle of Konotop article, trying hard to place his heavily exaggerated estimate of Russian casualties above the well-documented one and put it before the references that don't support his estimate and consider it unreliable and inflated. Please, keep an eye on that page and help to protect it from POV-pushing. Asharidu (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources in the origins section of the Bagrationi dynasty article

I have some concerns about the sources used in these sentences, and the overal deduction of information, as a secondary point;

"The Bagrationi dynasty has been reputed the oldest royal dynasty in Europe,[7][9][10][11] although Walter Curley's Monarchs-in-Waiting attributes that distinction to the Capetians of France,[14] as does Joseph Valynseele's Les Prétendants aux Trônes d'Europe,[15] who still reign in Spain and Luxembourg, while L. G. Pine contends that the Irish ruler, Niall of the Nine Hostages, fl. in the early 5th century AD also has living heirs,[16] although, like the Bagrationi, no longer reigning."

Now let's take a look at the sources a bit more in detail;

• The Curious Case of Ms. Orange, E.J. Edwards, p50 -- a novel, not WP:RS
• More moves on an Eastern chequerboard, Sir Harry Luke, p71 -- doesn't look WP:RS to me
• Handbook for Travellers in Russia, Poland, and Finland, John Murray, p322 -- outdated and idem
• The Chautauquan, Volume 22, Theodore L. Flood, Frank Chapin Bray, 1895, p698 -- outdated and not RS
• Walter Curley (1973). Monarchs-in-Waiting. Cornwall, NY: Dodd, Mead & Co. pp. 87, 217. ISBN 0-396-06840-5. -- was an ambassador, no indication as far as I can see that he held any degree or special expertise in this field of scholarship
• Joseph Valynseele (1967). Les Prétendants aux Trônes d'Europe. France: Saintard de la Rochelle. p. 179. -- seems to be WP:RS, says that the oldest is the Capetian dynasty
• L. G. Pine (1992). Titles: How the King became His Majesty. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble, Inc. p. 170. ISBN 9781566190855. -- was a member of the International Institute of Genealogy and Heraldry.

Your thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

L.G. Pine also fails, RS. As for the listing you have provided, it looks like a simple google book search for a specific phrase. Using any and every source that comes up. Have you searched for any other sources that would support the Bagrationi? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I also left a reply on the Gisela of Burgundy, Marchioness of Montferrat talk page, just in case. Wasn't really sure whether I should ping you or not. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I would mention it in the William V, Marquess of Montferrat article, as long as the addition of more numerals, (III) as opposed to (V), does not make it more convoluted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"Have you searched for any other sources that would support the Bagrationi?"" -- Nope. I couldn't find a single thing about it. Not in the Oxford database, nor in Google Scholar/Google Books. sorry for the late resp. about this - LouisAragon (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sack of Shamakhi (1721)

Hello, Kansas Bear - I appreciate your further copy-editing of Sack of Shamakhi (1721). I guess when I copy-edit articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, particularly those written in less-than-perfect prose (sometimes by non-native speakers of English), I just concentrate on putting the sentences into standard English and on improving the flow of the sentences. I only remove text if it seems to duplicate something already said elsewhere or is just useless fluff – completely unnecessary words. Otherwise, I don't drastically change what the requester has written. I see you are bolder than I am. I'm just curious what goes into your decision to remove larger swaths of text. How do you decide? I'd really like to learn from you. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure how to explain it. When I read the lead, some of the information appeared to be repeating the same thing. There were also, short blunt sentences that were seemingly thrown in, having no connection to the previous or following sentences. I integrated a few sentences and removed excess wording.

• "The harm done to the Russians in Shamakhi was soon used by Imperial Russia, then under the reign of Peter the Great (r.  1682–1725), as a pretext to launch the Russo-Persian War of 1722–1723."

Russian Empire is a given, hence the Russo-Persian war. No pertinent reason for Peter the Great to be mentioned. "As a pretext to launch", was too wordy, easily replaced by casus belli.

• "The event occurred during the reign of king Sultan Husayn (r.  1694–1722)."

I did not see any reason to mention this happening during Sultan Husayn's reign. Nor any reason for this sentence;

• "Intermittent incursions by the Lezgins started in 1709 and intensified around 1718."

This part of a sentence;

• "... and the property of its Christian and foreign inhabitants, mainly Russian merchants, was seized."

No reason to be so explicit, when the only reaction(at least according to the article) was the Russian casus belli.

I hope that helps. I also left LouisAragon a note stating my copy-editing, asking his opinion. Just in case I missed what he was trying to say. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Issues on two articles

Hi. What do you think about [100] and [101]? Very strange claims and sources. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

1.Assuming this(broken link) is this. It is WAY outdated. Would use with caution.

2.This book(in Russian?), by Pikulin M. G. Beludži. Might throw this one LouisAragon's way. I believe he can read Russian.

3.This book, by PhD in anthropology Naseer Dashti. Appears reliable. You might need to ensure this source is not being misrepresented, since the page is unviewable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be a work made by the "Academy of Sciences" of the Uzbek SSR, specifically its department for Orientalism, entitled "Baloch". Published in 1959 in Moscow. Could perhaps be of value, however, the "editor" who added it didn't even cite a single page, so there's nothing really that we can check, especially given the type of document.

Dashti is indeed a cultural anthropologist, and while I think that he could be viable on socio-cultural topics directly related to the Baloch (Baloch music, Baloch people, etc.), I'd avoid using him on specific history-related articles. Obviously, the user in question used it to "ethnically tag" the article, as he immediately went ahead to add "Balasagan" on the List of Iranian dynasties and countries article as a "proto-Baloch" dynasty. So yeah, feel free to fill in the "concerns" yourself. So far, he's being disruptive on numerous fronts in my opinion, so I have already left a warning on his page, apart from reverting him. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Mail

Sent you a mail btw, about Stevenson's work on James III (Power and Propaganda: Scotland 1306-1488). Forgot to let you know. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The Magical Pine Ring

As far as I can see, Margaret Bedrosian's, "The Magical Pine Ring: culture and the imagination in Armenian-American literature (short fiction by Armenian-American writers)" isn't a RS source? [102][103]. It is/was used on numerous occasions on the linked article, hence my question. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Since it is published by a university, my question is who wrote the introduction? If it was Bedrosian, then "Margaret Bedrosian is a lecturer in comparative literature at the University of California at Davis, where she also earned her Ph.D". Which may not be enough to qualify this as a reliable historical source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it can be a source for the sort of material it is being used for in the cited difs. It appears to be a book about how the past and particular historical events are used and represented within contemporary Armenian-American literature. So it could be used as a source for how Armenian authors and Armenian diaspora society approaches subjects connected to Armenian history, about what bits of history they consider to be important, about how they interpret that history, but not for claims about what happened during specific historical events. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@KB, I don't see any indication nor evidence in the entire book to assume that anyone but Bedroian wrote it (the introduction). - LouisAragon (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Sirhind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wazir Khan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

M. Sicker

What do you think about Martin Sicker, author of f.e. The Islamic World in Decline: From the Treaty of Karlowitz to the Disintegration of the Ottoman Empire'. Would you think he's usable on history-related topics? Didn't really manage to find more than this;
"MARTIN SICKER is a private consultant who has served as a senior executive in the US government and has taught political science at the American University and George Washington University. Dr. Sicker has written extensively in the field of political science and international affairs. He is the author of 13 previous books, including the companion volumes, The Pre-Islamic Middle East (Praeger, 2000) and The Islamic World in Ascendancy: From the Arab Conquests to the Siege of Vienna (Praeger, 2000)." - LouisAragon (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

From what little I could find, it would appear Sicker is a reliable source for more modern political issues, probably not so much for Islamic history. You might ask Doug Weller and see if he can find anything more explicit. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

He probably has no time, but I'll give it a shot. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Uzun Hassan

This is not about Hassan. The source is about the Safavids, and about Shah Ismail. Please refer to the source of Hassan and Aggoyunl ... The king's titles can be 100. You do not need to write them. We only need to write a formal title. Uzun Hasan Shah of Iran was not. Because at that time there were no Iranian state. Aydinsalis (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I am giving you this one chance to restore the reference and referenced information, else I will report you for edit warring. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Uzun Hasan was never the Padişah of Iran, what you are telling is not true Kansas Bear, also if it stands in an European book, we know Uzun Hasan and his tribe, their claims are unvalid, they claimed the same when they traveled through Dersim to be owners of the whole land, which is actually also not true, because the owners of the lands are Kurds and Armenians. kr, ERDINC (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Which is your opinion. Whereas Wikipedia is written using secondary sources, like this:H.R. Roemer, "The Safavid Period", in Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. VI, Cambridge University Press 1986, p. 339. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Muhammad

Your revertings are part of a series of zionist attacks on the article Muhammad. I have flagged that as WP:DDE. kr ERDINC (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pizza-ist. And if this(Zionism) is correct, pretty sure Israel already exists. Hmmmm... Yep, Israel.

So I do not need to be "pro-zionist". So I do hereby, officially and unconditionally, without any further ado, have pledged myself to Pizza-ism. Chicago-style, of course, you heretics! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@KansasBear, I'm sorry if you found my comments too personal, but I would like you to know that you come across as having a very high and arrogant attitude. This is an example. Pledging yourself to "pizzaism" and making a mockery of his ideas when another user is trying to air his point makes you come across as a self intelligent, know it all. I'm sure it's not just me that feels that way. I think you should try to temper your pride, and as for me I shall try my best to go and see how to cite a source that's not geni.com . Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.101.18 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• " I'm sorry if you found my comments too personal"

Still trying to act like you know something about me, I see. You are the only one trying to make all of this personal, which by the way is a violation of Wikipedia rules(comment on content not on contributor). I could care less what you think or say. However, the next comment from you that has nothing to do with content will be reported to an Admin.

• "Pledging yourself to "pizzaism" and making a mockery of his ideas.."

How dense are you? If you wish to support a personal attack of calling someone a "zionist", then you seriously have issues. Calling anyone a "zionist" is a very high, arrogant and ignorant thing to do. Imposing your self-inflated opinion over an issue you have ZERO knowledge is even more arrogant.

• "temper your pride"

Of not being a zionist? How about you mind your own fucking business. How about you keep your adolescent understanding of this world to yourself.

• "another user is trying to air his point"

I guess childish name calling must be more commonplace at your age. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you trying to say you are user:ERDINC? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@KansasBear First of, I'm not ERDINC, I don't even know him but I can see that you adopt a similar attitude with other people. I'm pretty sure he's saying your views are zionist (I don't agree or disagree, because he constructs them as being against his religion). So what I'm saying is you should address why he says this instead of talking about "pizzaism". I don't claim to know anything about you, but reading your comments I can infer that you think very highly of yourself and patrol Wikipedia enforcing every rule which doesn't fit your agenda. You now use vulgarities and personally attack me, so your doing the exact thing you claim not to be doing that's "against the rules" that you love to patrol enforcing. I simply came to Wikipedia to make contributions (I admit some are wrong), and you go around using a very high handed attitude deleting everything you don't like. As for 4 sisters all queens, I know it's historical fiction but birthdates are normally taken from research and are not just random dates someone pulls out . I've seen many people here, and evidently you go around warning people who don't got your definition of "encyclopedic" and claim that your blocks or warnings are all valid. (Just look through your talk page). Regardless, I'm not going to be a keyboard warrior and argue with you. I don't have 11 years to patrol Wikipedia. Cheerio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.101.18 (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• "I don't have 11 years to patrol Wikipedia"

LOL. Another attempt at talking about me. Typical adolescent crap.

• "I've seen many people here, and evidently you go around warning people who don't got your definition of "encyclopedic" and claim that your blocks or warnings are all valid."

HA! More proof of your ignorance.

• "You now use vulgarities and personally attack me.."

Hardly, since your mommy and daddy haven't taught you that you shouldn't expect courtesy from someone after you've insulted them(5-6 times by my count). As I said before, mind your own fucking business.

• "I know it's historical fiction but birthdates are normally taken from research and are not just random dates someone pulls out.."

That's called original research. If you are going to edit Wikipedia, I would suggest learning how Wikipedia works instead of edit-warring, personal attacks, and your whiny childish behavior.

AND, since you have ignored what I said, we are done here. Any more posts by you will be deleted and reported. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is article on prophet Muhammed is mutliple times under attack by zionist users (using different user ids). NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kansas Bear. You have new messages at Oranges Juicy's talk page.
Message added 16:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OJ (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The reliability of a ref

I asked you one day about the reliability of a ref, you said that it seems good. But an editor removed the ref claiming that it's a "Highly unreliable source". What do you think ? + Do you have an access to the full online version of (encyclopedia of islam, 3rd edition)? Can you provide me with the full version of this entry (Boumedienne). ‎Regards -Aṭlas (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm waiting for your reply. Are you here ? -Aṭlas (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I will not able to access my copy of EoI for some time. I would suggest you engage in discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus! that's what I do not want to reach. It wasn't a comfortable experience when I participated in a serious discussion last time (Ibn Tumart). It Caused me headaches. However, is this source (Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd edition) really unreliable? -Aṭlas (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you should read this before continuing the edit war

Unknowingly you're supporting POV pushers that behaved badly and were blocked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Persian_Gate#Hey_asshole. You're also going against simple logic and fairness. I think our interaction got too heated (both our fault) and neither of us wants to admit to being wrong even partially. I hope we can have a discussion without the edit war.Simanos (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Then let us remove Holland and use only academic sources for the figures. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure as long as the ref itself doesn't admit to be going against modern consensus. If it does that itself then it is a fringe view and it does not belong in the InfoBox but only in the main article text and with a note that explains it is fringe view by its own admission. Simple logic dictates that Simanos (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

persianate abbasids v ilkhanate

Hi, Where is the nonsensical thing ? The same applies to other articles. What is the difference from other articles? Arabs-Turks and Mongols are influenced by persian culture. Is there a special point of view against the Turkic people ? Because we see that the same thing is applied only to the articles that concern the Turkic people. Abbasids have reliable and academic resources. I admit that Ilkhanate source is not very reliable. However, Mongols when they are culturally affected like the same Turks. The situation of Ilkhanate is very clear. I think the source is unnecessary. Already certain.--212.252.99.122 (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• "The Abbasid Caliphate was the Persianate third of the Islamic caliphates to succeed the Islamic prophet Muhammad."

This sentence makes no sense. And, if you can not understand that, then you should not be editing English Wikipedia. Also, as to your broken comment of "Turkic people", if "Persianate" is present in the lead, then there should be a section explaining in detail how this "dynasty"/"caliphate" is Persianate in culture. AND, judging from the extensive culture section of the Abbasid Caliphate article, you are going to need one hell of a lot more than one source. Compared to "Turkic people"(whomever you are referring), maybe you should do more reading than editing.

As for "Political and Cultural History of Ilkhanate State: Tarikh-i Siasy wa Farhangi-i Dowlat-i Ilkhanan", is not written by an historian and CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform is a self publishing company.

• "The situation of Ilkhanate is very clear. I think the source is unnecessary."

Wikipedia is written using published reliable source. So, a source is necessary. I see nothing concerning culture in the Ilkhanate article. Yet again, some solitary source will not support shoving "Persianate" into the lead of an article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem the word persianate. Of course, the Turkic people are influenced in the cultural sense. But why do they bring it to the top in the definition of the state. It is wrong to include it in the definition of the state. The real point I can't understand; This is only done in the Turkic states.

I will give you an example; Roman Empire influenced by Greek culture and language. So the roman empire is a Hellenized empire. But it would be wrong if we use it to describe the state.

• " Roman empire was the Hellenized post-Roman Republic period of the ancient Roman civilization, characterized by government headed by emperors and large territorial holdings around the Mediterranean Sea in Europe, Africa and Asia."

My English is middle level. I realize that sentence is not very true. in any case it is wrong to use it in the definition of the state. I think it is not impartial to make this only to the Turkic states. After the state description is done correctly; Would not it be more correct to state this cultural interaction in a more objective manner? Examples I see; Ag Qoyunlu-Timurid Empire-Khwarazmian Empire-Seljuk Empire. These are just some examples. I think it's distorted according to nationalist interests. But I can't understand why administrators don't prevent this. The Arabs and the Mongols were culturally influenced as much as the Turks. I told you them because you are interested in these topics and you are an old user. --212.252.99.122 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• "I think it is not impartial to make this only to the Turkic states."

IF you are using this source, Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, you know damned well the impact Turko-Persian/Persianate culture had on the Ottoman Empire(used Persian until mid 19th century, Canfield, p.19), Sultanate of Rum, Seljuk Empire; and through these very same empires influenced India.

• "I think it's distorted according to nationalist interests."

Nationalist interests of ????? IF you have read the very same source you have used here, then your comments are less than sincere. Accordingly, your statements and reactions indicate someone who has a problem with the term "Turko-Persian", seeing it as a stain on the greatness of their nation. Whereas, I see "Turko-Persian" as a new culture created by the Ghaznavids and made into something even more influential and lasting by the Seljuk Turks, that existed until the 19th century.

• "The Arabs and the Mongols were culturally influenced as much as the Turks."

Possibly, but unilaterally added "Persianate" to the lead of articles does not prove anything. Which I have now told you for the 2nd time.

• "But I can't understand why administrators don't prevent this."

I can not understand why administrators allow blocked users like EMr_KnG to edit via IP.

• ""Roman empire was the Hellenized post-Roman Republic period of the ancient Roman civilization, characterized by government headed by emperors and large territorial holdings around the Mediterranean Sea in Europe, Africa and Asia."

See, making comparing statements like this exposes your own bias. You use Canfield as a source, complain about the use of Persianate in certain articles, then try to use the Roman Empire as an analogy? I believe we are done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nawab of Awadh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

zubu confederation

read gumilev book page 92 and Frederick W. Mote book page 405Joohnny braavoo1 (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I did. Pity you did not cite that page.

• "L.L. Viktorova supposes that the Zubu are an independent Turkic people, descendants of the Hun. But this opinion, perhaps, we do not have to review because a chronological gap of a thousand years has not been taken into account."

That is cherry picking information. And the following sentences, prove Gumilev does not share what he clearly calls an opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, you did not cite Mote page 405, either, which is also, rather speculative. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

All in all, I see nothing specifically calling Zubu a Turkic or Mongolic people. Your continued synthesis is getting tiresome. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This edit is original research. Mote does not call the Zubu, Turco-Mongol. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

okey but why are they mongol then? You get disturbed because they may are a xiongnu tribe? you deleted turkic articels not mongol ,many butthurts in wikipedia i see and what is the problem white some of these peoples? khamag mongol and tatar is mongol the rest turkicJoohnny braavoo1 its a confederation whit mongol and turkic-mongol tribes!!(talk) 20:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow.

• "You get disturbed because they may are a xiongnu tribe?"

You get disturbed when you are not allowed to call any group Turkic using your own opinion and synthesis.

• "you deleted turkic articels not mongol ,many butthurts in wikipedia i see

Apparently you missed civility training whist pushing your POV into this encyclopedia. You appear to be the only one "many butthurts" here.

If you do not know what original research or synthesis is, you should not be editing Wikipedia.

Judging from your broken illegible English, I do not believe you are competent to edit English Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

My english is enough for me! i find reference that zubu show as turkic tribe but did not know the important between research and synthesis, sorry my mistake:)Joohnny braavoo1 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Several violations

Is there any administrative decision on Administrator's noticeboard#Several violations? Why topic was archived? John Francis Templeson (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Co-Princes of Andorra

I noticed you reverted an edit on Co-Princes of Andorra. I was suspicious of the same edit myself, but it turns out it's not the POV vandalism we'd expect. The image is cropped so it's just a more recent picture of Macron's face. —Guanaco 00:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that as well. An edit summary from the IP doing the edits would have helped immensely. Thanks Guanaco! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ibn Al-Haytham

Hi Kansas bear, i can see you're reverting all sources without any explanation, Ibn Al-Haytham was a scientist and i think that the IOP of London is a more reliable source that your sole opinion. They are dealing with all physicians and not only muslims, that's not a reason to say they are not reliables...It's easy to revert all changees just because you don't want to admit that the ethnicity of that scholar is NOT clear and doing so means you don't respect the rules of Wikipedia, and apparently you just don't care about that. So could you please give me an explanation for that ?

Really?

• "..i can see you're reverting all sources without any explanation.."

I can see you are not capable of reading,

"rv, not a reliable source for Islamic history, this has been explained on the talk page, ad nauseam"[104]

"rv, still not a reliable source for Islamic history"[105]

Miss these explanations?

Or this one? "Physics.org is not a reliable source for Islamic history."[106]

Compared to your battleground comment?

• "So could you please give me an explanation for that ? or maybe it's because you just don't like Persians ???"[107]

You sound like a blocked user. Hmmmm. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a blocked user, if i was i would not be able to edit... I just think that you cannot read correctly my friend: You don't answer my question : Why isn't Institute of Physics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Physics) a relable sources ? just because you say that ? Hmmmm...?

Unpublished, unreviewed, unauthored. If the information is so reliable, why not find a book published by an historian?

• "I just think that you cannot read correctly my friend:"

Been reading longer than you, and I just proved you are a liar;"...i can see you're reverting all sources without any explanation.."

Also, you have not been reading enough, since you have blatantly missed the entire discussion on the talk page covering this topic. Which ends up with no reliable published source calling him Persian. Simply because you can google up some unpublished website to push your POV, does not mean it is reliable.

So I am done with you blocked user/sockpuppet. Stay off my talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Hydaspes

Listen to me, I am not merely "Editing" the page. I am demanding SOURCES for baseless claims. I get that according to wikipedia, this is called Editing, but the edit-war is only due to that user who is reverting them just to suit his POV by taking the excuse of removing my "POV". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.97.48.11 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring over citation tags, you should start a discussion on the talk page and ask for reliable sources there. Edit-warring over citation tags will just get you blocked. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Turkmen turcoman and oghuz turks and turkish

Hey Kansas Bear, I just wanted to let you know that historically turkoman and oghuz turks were used synonymously but most of oghuz turks history revolved around turkish and azeri people and not around the modern turkmen people . Although oghuz turks have three main ethnics part of it of which turkmen is part of it but historically its been either turkish people or azeri people who have ruled anatolia . If you look at the anatolian beyliks they were speakers of anatolian turkish which is western oghuz language while turkmen is eastern language. All rulers were turkish and spoke anatolian turkish under seljuks who were turkish and ancestors of modern turkish people . Anatolian beyliks are descendants of seljuks and spoke turkish and were oghuz turks . So although in some sources turkmen is written but that was the turkmen word being used instead of oghuz turks not implying the modern turkmen people who are somewhat a different ethnic group. I hope you can help me fix this

Actually, you should not be changing referenced information. Continuing this type of editing is disruptive.

• "So although in some sources turkmen is written but that was the turkmen word being used instead of oghuz turks...."

That is original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and we both know how Wikipedia works, so arbitrarily changing words, then being reverted, clearly means you need to take your concerns to the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

help please

Abbasid caliphs the opportunity to reassert their traditional role as sovereign arbitrators. A major weakness of Buyid rule was the fact that the Deylamites remained footsoldiers, so that from the beginning the Buyids were forced to employ Turkish horsemen in large numbers to balance their armies. Fighting between the two ethnic elements became endemic under the later Buyids. The Turkish element also quickly intruded into the ruling house. ʿAżod-al-Dawla himself was half Turkish, the son of a Turkish concubine, and some of the later Buyids had more Turkish than Deylamite blood. By 453/1062 Buyid rule had been overthrown by the Saljuq Turks. find this in “DEYLAMITES,” Encyclopaedia Iranica i Wonder if it's usefulJoohnny braavoo1 (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Help with what? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

for his newest bogus.he wants to add it to his favorite List of Turkic dynasties and countries.188.158.93.215 (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Xionites

Recent issue:

• A user decided to remove sourced info (plus a misleading edit summary).[108]
• Then he added this.[109] I removed it because it's not reliable/expert in my opinion and it's against other cited references.

Is the current lead section NPOV and WP:WEIGHT or I should remove "Iranian" origin from the lead section? Please check Origins section on the article. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Wario-Man: This is new Tirgil34 sock making large number of edits on India-related articles to look like a reputable editor but similarities with the sockmaster is astonishing[110][111][112][113][114]. Other possible socks are [115] and [116].

Clodfelter?

What's the problem with the source? Ping me please, I watch your page but might miss it. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, according to amazon.com, "Micheal Clodfelter is an active member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the author of several books on military history. A researcher and consultant for the Dupuy Institute of Military History, he lives in Lawrence, Kansas."

I have found no other information regarding Clodfelter's credentials.

Also, I believe some editors think "M. Clodfelter", author of Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015, to be Mark Clodfelter, which clearly he is not.--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. See Google Books[117] and this Texas University Press book.[118] Doug Weller talk 18:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I still do not see any indication of his academic qualification. He's a researcher for Dupuy Institute of Military History, but their site states, "conducts its military history research, analysis and reporting under contract with government and private agencies, through book contracts with publishers, under the terms of grants from foundations and corporations, and through projects developed under its own initiative."

Nothing about using qualified or academic persons. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I think he'd get a pass at RSN. Some more acadaemic press books.[119][120][121]. I'm not sure I'd accept a source from an author with academic qualifications but no one citing them. Also see Google Scholar.[122] Doug Weller talk 09:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: So in contrast the journalist, John F. Baddeley's writing(s) can be used as a source and used to create articles, since he has been used as a source by a university press? I am just curious where we draw the line. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

How often? Anyway, I'd recommend RSN. Doug Weller talk 05:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Funny thing, I was listening to an American Air Force pilot's WWII memoirs and he mentioned a high school coach called Clodfelter. Anyway, I'm not trying to be difficult, but the number of sources using him does speak in his favor. Others at RSN might disagree. Doug Weller talk 09:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd avoid using him as well. Sure, I agree that he's not as clear cut "non-RS" as someone like Kermit the Frog would be, but he's pretty far from the sweet spot as well. Mainly per the reasons Kansas Bear mentioned. If he were to pass, then we would have to open our doors to a whole lot more. That would definitely not benefit the content quality of this place. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Scythians

I added this section[123] in 2015. Now I think it's more accurate and neutral to change it to this title[124] because "Scythian tribes" may confuse the readers and some editors, e.g. they think Scythians were a specific ethnic group. Is it OK? What is your suggestion? --Wario-Man (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Battle Of Haldhighati

Dear Kansas Bear, I am here to inform you that you and other editors have made incorrect edits to Battle of Haldighati. If you not have heard but the government of Rajashtan has recently accepted the change to history textbooks. Rajashtan textbooks now state that Maharana Pratap won the war. I kindly request that you change the article to the correct information.

Proof: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/maharana-pratap-won-haldighati-varsity-accepts-mla-proposal-4767252/

Thanks, User:TheNewSMG

I could care less what the government of Rajashtan thinks, says, or does. Wikipedia is written using reliable secondary sources. Continued removal of references/referenced information is disruptive editing.--Kansas Bear (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No one cares what you think of Rajashtan but the textbooks have been changed and Wikipedia is not even close to history textbooks — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNewSMG (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

And no one cares what some arbitrary textbooks in Rajashtan state! We are done here. Do not post on my talk page again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Re Granada War talk

Hi Kansas! I should point out, for what is worth, you may have noticed that a disruptive editor blocked at last in June is doing his 'best' to fool the system, clearly, all in the same direction, Iberian Peninsula articles, a case of WP:NOTHERE. Best Iñaki LL (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Emails

Kansas Bear, reposting private emails is typically considered a bad idea (see Wikipedia:Emailing_users#Reposting_emails_publicly) and I have revdeleted one, from User talk:Krajoyn. I hope you understand. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire revert

Hi Kansas Bear, regarding my reversion on the article that placed Afghanistan along with Pakistan as the Indian subcontinent. Why did you remove it? I believe it was in good faith since generally according to Wikipedia's own page on the Indian subcontinent, Afghanistan is not part of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent

If you want, maybe i can word the sentence better? Akmal94 (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the revert, you could have just reworded the sentence in question. So instead I fixed the sentence in question:

• "Following the conquest of Iran and neighboring regions, Shapur I extended his authority northwest of the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan and Afghanistan). The previously autonomous Kushans were obliged to accept his suzerainty. These were the western Kushans which controlled Afghanistan while the eastern Kushans were active in India."

References

I apologize you are correct,the sentence seems fine once reading over it. Akmal94 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect date of death Ismail I, Sultan of Granada

I took my concerns to the talk page of Ismail I.
Regards, Emiel (talk) 08:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Corinthian War or Peace of Antalcidas?

Should the Corinthian War (or the resulting Peace of Antalcidas) be added to the infobox of the Achaemenid Empire? Curious about your opinion. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes to both. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done What about the Peloponnesian War btw? A bit more tricky imo. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, someone placed Category:Wars involving the Achaemenid Empire at the bottom of the article, so I would think it applies. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Battle of haldighati

Bro seen you had been frequently editing 'battle of haldighati' claiming to be desicive mughal victory but being a history schoolar neither of the ambition of mughals were fullfuled and all they had no answere of bhill archers moreover its a well know fact that there were more than 80000 mughal soldires please dont spread false propaganda Shakta11 (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I see you removing a reference and referenced information to push your own opinion. I highly suggest using the talk page to get consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kansas Bear. You have new messages at Operator873's talk page.
Message added 23:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Operator873^CONNECT 23:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Hydaspes Talk-Farce Continues

Please come to the section [125]and help me out. Khirurg has chosen not to do anything substantial except sling mud. Give me your Consensus there please. Lord Aseem (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. I will not be party to comments such as "hypocrite of the first order, mudslinger, liar, Eurocentric White-Supremacist Neo-Nazi imaginary fairytale, or Indophobic attitude". You have made your bed concerning that issue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Not this issue, the issue regarding the Roy 2004 and Roy 2014 scholastics. He doesn't seem to simply get it. All I need is you to give your verdict on is the Roy thingy. I have already apologized for the the rest. BTW, Eurocentric White-Supremacist Neo-Nazi imaginary fairytale is again a out of context comment. I meant that if Khirurg could conjure up any source that speaks directly of "Greek Technological superiority over Indians" even from the such sources, I would accept it.Lord Aseem (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit War Warning

Hi, you left an edit war warning on my talk page. This isn't valid. --Moshe Avigdor (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

You have reverted two different editors, that is edit warring. It is VERY valid. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion please

Hi Kansas Bear, i'm here because i'm looking for confirmed editors who are competent in the field of medieval islam. Judging by your very sourced contribution on ibn al-Haytham's talk page, you are ! I would like to know your opinion about the article on Muhammad ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi. I investigated the sources claiming he is the father of algebra, and i wanted to write in his article something like "often regarded as the father of algebra" or "considered by many as the father of algebra". I found many solid sources for that (S. Gandz, C. B. Boyer), but two other contrbutors want to state the weaker claim "considered the father of algebra by some authors". When i look at Hyppocrates for example, it's stated in his article "father of early medicine", not "father of early medicine for some authors" even if other candidates exist (Charaka or Imhotep)... Thanks for your valuable time and your precious opinion. Wikaviani (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Theodoric III

What is the source for Chrotolind? I’m puzzled about the ? mark. Thank you for your help. Sherie50 (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What does a question mark mean to you? If we want to go down the road of Merovingian historiography, there are few definitive primary sources to establish exact information concerning the Merovingians.(Images of the Merovingians and Carolingians, Bouchard, 2006) So what does that tell you?

• "What is the source for Chrotolind?"

Is there a source for Chrotolind? Have you searched books.google.com for reliable sources concerning this individual? As I have instructed other editors, most of whom do quality work here, understand what a reliable source is, check it against other reliable sources. When in doubt, go to Reliable sources noticeboard.

I have a question for you. Why does some editor from Singapore[126][127] think that

• http://www.cft-win.com/getperson.php?personID=I022453
• http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=lorenfamily&id=I36432
• https://www.geni.com/people/Theodoric-III-king-of-the-Franks/6000000002228883916

are reliable sources? What is even more puzzling, is that said editor edit wars this unpublished and unauthored junk from the internet into an article.

What is also puzzling, is that said editor clearly does not understand the meaning of "c.". Here's a hint, Circa. So what is to be gained by changing "c.654" to "c.652"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand the problem with the above references and Merovingian research. I have only found her on Wikipedia and “Royality for Commoners”, which includes all genealogies - even the implausible.

It sounds as if different editors have different standards of reliability, resulting in the ? on some pages and not others. And that there is no way of determining the source without looking at the books listed in the bibliography. Correct? Thank you for your help. I’m new st using Wikipedia for this purpose. The gray areas are a little broader than in some fields —� Sherie50 (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Make History Great Again!

Hi, thanks for the message you sent me. I merely followed the example of others -- namely, placing Persian(the ethnicity) into article(s) without proper sourcing or giving Persian ethnicity undue weight into the lead of articles. Would you be inclined to discussing this with them? Thanks for your understanding and I look forward to your reply. Objective Historian (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

My advice: You will be better off getting a consensus of editors(on the talk page) if you wish to add or change an ethnicity in the lead of an article. Else, it will be nothing but edit wars and personal attacks. I, personally, do not care what ethnicity anyone has article/person as long as it has reliable sources to support said assertion. That said, good luck! --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sir, regarding the "Al-Tabari" article, the referenced Encyclopedia Iranica article says: "There is thus no way of knowing for certain whether Ṭabari’s family was native to the Āol region or perhaps arrived with the wave of Muslim colonists after the Abbasid revolution, either as converts or Arab settlers."

Since, as in the case of the Hunayn ibn Ishaq article: "there are multiple theories about his ethnicity in the body of the article, placing just one in the lead is undue weight", perhaps it's better to follow that example. Thanks and I look forward to your reply. Make Wikipedia Great Again!!Objective Historian (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, go to the talk page, discuss with other editors, and get consensus. More than likely, other editors will revert your edits simply because they are not what the current consensus holds. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Your warning message on my talk page

How am I involved in edit warring?![128] I just reverted 2 of his edits, neither 3RR nor edit warring.[129][130] Have you verified his edits?[131][132][133][134] And added this after his comments on the talk page.[135] Did you read my comments? Should I provide some evidences how he does POV-pushing on several other articles? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It was a warning, nothing else(ie. don't take it personal). Post your evidence on the talk page, ignore everything else(POV pushing, etc) and prove your point using quotes and sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

And it was a wrong warning (improper use of warning template). How did you interpret 2 reverts with clear edit summaries as "edit warring"? Read my first comment on that talk page to see how that editor changes the sourced texts. I don't participate there anymore. Just FYI, some examples of his previous edits on other articles:

• [136] and reverted your edits [137][138]
• [139]
• [140]
• [141][142]
• [143][144][145]
• [146]
• [147]
• [148]
• An many others which you can find them, from history to political articles. Don't you see a nationalistic pattern in his edits? And how he uses misleading edit summaries to change and manipulate or remove sourced texts. His new target is Ashina and he uses his typical methods. I have clarified every thing on Talk:Ashina. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually the information in the ==Writing== section had no sources.[149] I have posted quotes to get the ball rolling. Are you going to help?

As for Akcosg POV editing, continuing to mention it over and over, is not proof. Just like I had to prove the POV editing of another editor on Justin McCarthy. That editor was proven to be a sockpuppet.

If you have that much evidence of his POV editing, I would contact an Admin.

As for me, I am going to find source for Ashina, Eastern Turkic Khaganate, and Western Turkic Khaganate. And if I find unsourced information, in those articles, that is contradicted by referenced information, you can count on it being changed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

My points are clear and that editor is biased and non-neutral, I don't want to discuss it anymore because as I mentioned in my above comment, he has a long-term history of such edits. Plus it's interesting this IP 2003:6:212F:EF44:85E:DE81:EBDD:FA3E (talk · contribs) appeared and removed all content (look at those edit summaries).[150][151] If you want to improve the article, you should start by this revision.[152] --Wario-Man (talk) 08:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Not to bother you, but

I'm not sure who to advise. It appears the Labasan is back under the name Jobee Dalog Labasan. There are about 50 strange edits today involving infobox images on pope pages. I've started to rv some. Cheers. Mannanan51 (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Turcoman?

What do you think of these edits?[153] Are you, by any chance, able to view the sources? Given "Retrieverlove"'s editorial pattern, I wonder whether the two new names he added to the list were actually of Turcoman origin, or whether this is just another unsourced addition. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The actual name of the book, The Muslim World, Part III:The Last Great Muslim Empires.

According to this copy, page 210, there is a family tree of sorts.

First off; for the mother of Ismail III it shows Maryam Begum or Khan Aqa Begum. Apparently retrieverlove chose the first. Secondly; it shows a Sharbanu married to Mirza Da'ud Husayni and their child being Sayyid Muhammad Husayni. I do not see a Suleiman II(the article shows his given name as Mir Sayyed Mohammad Marashi) on this page. And, there is no mention of ethnicity on page 210.

Do you think Mir Sayyed Mohammad Marashi = "Sayyid Muhammad Husayni"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the Sayyid Muhammad Husayni mentioned in the book, is the same person as Mir Sayyed Mohammad Marashi/Suleiman II. Given usual Safavid practise, for Queen Mothers post-Abbas I, chances are very low that the two women in question were in fact Turcomans. Regardless of the hoax addition here on Wiki. My gut says the edits need to be reverted per WP:VER and WP:OR. Would you agree? - LouisAragon (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

If Turcoman is the contested issue, then yes. Since the book in question makes no mention of ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Qara khitai

Mark r.v southern 

Contagious Couplings: Transmission of Expressives in Yiddish Echo Phrases is The book about qara khitai and p 77 Brazil38 (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Why give me Edit warning so fast i havet source on qara khitai Brazil38 (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Juha jahnunen his book the mongol languages says The were turkicized too... Brazil38 (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The book is from 2006 and i think If som one must havet a Edit warning The it is you Brazil38 (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark Southern, a linguist, making a statement(who later Turkicized) in passing about the Qara Khitai in a field(history) he has no specialization, in a book about Yiddish Echo Phrases. Biran, also, does not state the Qara Khitai were Turkicized. More source misrepresentation. Clearly this is not your first time editing, so what other name(s) have you edited under? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Qara khitai are often referred to as infidel turks read birans book page 143 !! You hide important facts! Brazil38 (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you can not read. Note exactly who refers to them as "infidel turks"(ie. footnote 91!). Typical POV pushing from a sockpuppet! That being said, do not post here again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Persianate culture

Please take a look at the references I provided on my own user page about the issue of Persianate culture. The sources are written by actual experts on Turkish and Ottoman history, and are not passing references to it in the context of other discussions, as were the quotes that you gave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.251.99 (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Göktürks and Maenchen-Helfen's book

Could you review this edit and compare sourced text with the book to see if they match or not?[154] Also consider these edits too.[155], [156], and [157]. Plus I enabled my email feature. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It is and I reverted Beshogur. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Needs a discussion on talk page for the possible future incidents. Please add it to your watchlist. Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Will do.

Also, the Ashina article needs to be expanded, especially the Origin section. The Etymology part needs to be sectioned off, along with the Genetic part. The sources for the Origin section need to be checked and verified. Maybe once that part of the Ashina article is written and sourced, then the nonsense on Gokturks will be resolved. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. We can improve it. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is Maenchen-Helfen's book. I have asked for a quote concerning the Ashina on the Gokturk talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I really doubt that user is neutral. Who calls an edit like this as "fix"?[158] Plus [159], [160], [161]. As I said, some users should always watch and check his edits. He reminds me of several sockmaster cases (past and current ones). I don't know why all of them behave similar. Is it a common WP:BATTLEGROUND + nationalism mentality? From Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EMr KnG to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joohnny braavoo1 and some others. And why this another guy involved himself in edit warring?[162] --Wario-Man (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps of use

Though its all straightforward and basic information (I hadn't seen the paper before I think, though perhaps you had); Matthee, Rudi (2010). Was Safavid Iran and Empire?. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient: 53. pp. 233-265.

Ethnic diversity;

"In its ethnic make-up, the Safavid realm was more heterogenous than in its religious diversity. The country was populated by Persians, Turks, and Arabs, in addition to a multitude of smaller, less prominent groups such as Baluchis, Kurds, Lurs, Turkmen, Circassians, and Lezghis. Further ethno-religious diversity was introduced with the transfer of large numbers of Armenians and Georgians, from their ancestral homelands, which were annexed by Safavid Iran (...) The country's domestic Armenians formed a sizeable group (...)" -- p. 240

Language of culture from the Balkans to India;

"Persian was also the language of culture, above all of poetry--as it was for the entire area between the Balkans and the Deccan--where it functioned as a lingua franca." -- p. 244

Diminishing of influence of the Turkomans;

"Beginning in the sixteenth century, the Safavids, seeking to curtail thepower and influence of the unruly tribal Turkman forces, introduced a new service elite without tribal ties consisting of Armenian, Georgian, and Circassian “slaves.” As said, these ghulams were given high-ranking positions in the military and the administration following their formal conversion to Islam. With a new identity came a new name. Many were named Rustam or Khusraw, names from the Shahnamah with links to the ancient mythical past." -- p. 245

- LouisAragon (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Well the IP on the Persianate article would ignore this sentence entirely.

• "Persian was also the language of culture, above all of poetry--as it was for the entire area between the Balkans and the Deccan--where it functioned as a lingua franca." -- p. 244

Although the journal article does sound familiar. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Inspired by your recent discovery; seen this? [163]

Another jackpot. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh DAMN! Very nice! Excellent job, LA! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

More cool stuff; probably the most in-depth work I've ever seen in English, to date, regarding the situation in Daghestan in the Safavid/Afsharid/Zand/Qajar and early Russian periods. All governors/vassals/subject rulers, and a thorough explanation on "how it all worked".[164] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Bookmarked! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kansas Bear. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Abbas Mirza, New Cambridge Medieval History

I noticed in Spencer C. Tuckers, A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, as well as Axworthy's A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind (as well as other titles), that the Qajars managed to retake the city of Ganja during the offensive of 1826. The city was retaken without a battle, apparently, for the Russians simply surrendered it/withdrew from it. Do you think this event, which didn't culminate in a so-called "pitched battle, deserves a separate article? Or should it just be lumped into existing articles?

I also sent you a reply regarding your inquiry about Dean's chapter in the Cambridge Medieval History (vol. 5). The Ezzelino's are indeed an odd case. Looking forward to your response.

- LouisAragon (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The retaking of Ganja falls under the notability concerns; was the retaking of Ganja(ie. simply marching in and occupying the city) notable? Probably not enough for a separate article. A simple mention in the overall war would suffice.

Will check Cambridge Medieval History vol. 5. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Some issues

Could you take a look at these articles and some claims by a specific user?

• Ghurid dynasty: [165], [166] Talk page: [167]
• Bactria: [168], [169] Talk page: [170]
• Khalji dynasty: [171] Talk page: [172]

Seems that user has a pro-Pashtun/Afghan pov. The cited sources do not look WP:RS and I think the RS ones like Oxford are just misrepresentation and his original researches.@LouisAragon: Don't you agree with me? --Wario-Man (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I'll go through them quickly, one by one;

- [173] - [174] Textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS (i.e. self-formulated WP:OR, using Wikipedia as source, giving own twist to primary sources / outdated sources)

- [175] No evidence, no counter sources. Just a collection of loose words shot into the air.

- [176] Removed sourced content (Britannica), copy-pasted the same source (CE) once more, and dropped it behind the word "Pashtun" (which was non-existent prior to his edit).

- [177] Iranica doesn't confirm the material he added, "freewebs.com" looks well within the non-RS range.

- [178] Added WP:OR and an outdated source on the Khalji page.

- [179] In line with everything above; more self-formulated OR.

Add to that the two personal attacks,[180]-[181] and you've got yourself a gentleman playing extremely incautiously with fire. So yeah, I would have to agree with you. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Verification and please comment

Is this legit or a strong source for such a big claim?[182] How can I verify this "Cambridge Encyclopedia"?

• Cambridge Encyclopedia Vol. 8, pg. 2246, "Bactria - Geography, History, Tokharistan, Archaeological sites", with this quote "The Bactrians are one of the ancestral lines of the modern-day Pashtuns, Tajiks, of Central Asia."

Isn't it outdated or dubious? And please comment on Talk:Bactria#bactrian_people. The edit warrior/new user is now teaching me the Wikipedia rules and turned the whole conversation into a personal fight! I don't know how to deal with him. Need your help. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unable to find anything. You might ask Doug Weller, he dabbles in archaeology. As it stands right now, they have a source, a page number and a quote, until you or someone else can refute what that source states, they can use it in the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Bournoutian (2016)

I thought you might be interested in this material from Bournoutian's new book. Sorry in advance if you think I cluttered your talk page!

Bournoutian, George A. (2016). The 1820 Russian Survey of the Khanate of Shirvan: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of an Iranian Province prior to its Annexation by Russia. Gibb Memorial Trust.;

p. xvi

"As noted, in order to construct an Azerbaijani national history and identity based on the territorial definition of a nation, as well as to reduce the influence of Islam and Iran, the Azeri nationalists, prompted by Moscow devised an "Azeri" alphabet, which replaced the Arabo-Persian script. In the 1930s a number of Soviet historians, including the prominent Russian Orientalist, Ilya Petrushevskii, were instructed by the Kremlin to accept the totally unsubstantiated notion that the territory of the former Iranian khanates (except Yerevan, which had become Soviet Armenia) was part of an Azerbaijani nation. Petrushevskii's two important studies dealing with the South Caucasus, therefore, use the term Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani in his works on the history of the region from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Other Russian academics went even further and claimed that an Azeri nation had existed from ancient times and had continued to the present. Since all the Russian surveys and almost all nineteenth-century Russian primary sources referred to the Muslims who resided in the South Caucasus as "Tatars" and not "Azerbaijanis", Soviet historians simply substituted Azerbaijani for Tatars. Azeri historians and writers, starting in 1937, followed suit and began to view the three-thousand-year history of the region as that of Azerbaijan. The pre-Iranian, Iranian, and Arab eras were expunged. Anyone who lived in the territory of Soviet Azerbaijan was classified as Azeri; hence the great Iranian poet Nezami, who had written only in Persian, became the national poet of Azerbaijan.

p. xvii;

"Although after Stalin's death arguments rose between Azerbaijani historians and Soviet Iranologists dealing with the history of the region in ancient times (specifically the era of the Medes), no Soviet historian dared to question the use of the term Azerbaijan or Azerbaijani in modern times. As late as 1991, the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, published a book by an Azeri historian, in which it noy only equated the "Tatars" with the present-day Azeris, but the author, discussing the population numbers in 1842, also included Nakhichevan and Ordubad in "Azerbaijan". The author, just like Petrushevskii, totally ignored the fact that between 1828 and 1921, Nakhichivan and Ordubad were first part of the Armenian Province and then part of the Yerevan guberniia and had only become part of Soviet Azerbaijan, some eight decades later."

p. xv;

"Although the overwhelming number of nineteenth-century Russian and Iranian, as well as present-day European historians view the Iranian province of Azarbayjan and the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan as two separate geographical and political entities, modern Azeri historians and geographers view it as a single state that has been separated into "northern" and "southern" sectors and which will be united in the future."

p. xviii;

"Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the current Azeri historians have not only continued to use the terms "northern" and "southern" Azerbaijan, but also assert that the present-day Armenian Republic was a part of northern Azerbaijan. In their fury over what they view as the "Armenian occupation" of Nagorno-Karabakh [which incidentally was an autonomous Armenian region within Soviet Azerbaijan], Azeri politicians and historians deny any historic Armenian presence in the South Caucasus and add that all Armenian architectural monuments located in the present-day Republic of Azerbaijan are not Armenian but [Caucasian] Albanian."

- LouisAragon (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

catholic-hierarchy.org

The reliability of this source has already been discussed at length, and according to the discussion at WP:RSN as well as widespread, heavy and consistent use of it across the spectrum of WP:CATHOLIC articles, there has been no repudiation of its reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The onus would be on you to muster a change in WP:CONSENSUS and deprecate its use in the project. 98.176.128.60 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Not according to an Admin. It is not considered a reliable source and there is no consensus for its use. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

xiongnu

If I've done the wrong change, then you can fix it if you want thanksSazz10 (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I put the text in the wrong place , it is about languageSazz10 (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ummayad conquest of Hispania

Hi Kansas Bear, how are you? It would be appreciated your attention back here. The issue seems to be not going, and the editor does not understand that he is misrepresenting sources, and wp:synthing. I am not edit-warring, hope I do not have to open an incident. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Iñaki LL (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Baghdad (1258)

IP has tagged infobox entries.[183] Your thoughts? --Wario-Man (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

A quick once over the article, Armenia(n) is mentioned 5 times, one of which is in the article, three in the infobox and one in a category. This source:

• L. Venegoni (2003). Hülägü's Campaign in the West - (1256-1260), Transoxiana Webfestschrift Series I, Webfestschrift Marshak 2003.
  

Appears to be from Marshak Festschrift, Eran ud Aneran. I could find nothing on L. Venegoni.

The other questioned source:

• National Geographic, v. 191 (1997)

I would not use it.

Please be aware of a pro-Mongol editor(using the names Asteriset & Estarena) that was removing information they did not like. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

So those tags should remain there? --Wario-Man (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless you have a problem with them. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad bin ikhtiyar khilji

Yes i agree with it and i will try and resolve this issue on the talk page. I have reverted it back to what it was originally. I would discuss this on talk page to further confirm the sources. Thankyou for letting me know.

Nader Shah

Would you be willing to review these edits?[184] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The first book, is unviewable, so unless they have that book how would they know what it says? It currently costs $139 on amazon.com AND, Turcoman/Turkman are essentially the same thing. Also, if we have a more modern source then we could just go with what that calls him.

The second a journal review, (which I am not sure we can use as a source), states;"Nadir's native language could not be "Turki or Eastern Turkish". As an Afshar he surely spoke a southern Turcoman dialect, similar to that of all the Afshars scattered throughout Persia,i.e. in usual parlance, " the Turkish of Azarbayjan." The Afshars were certainly an Oghuz, and not a Mongol tribe."

And yet, according to Oghuz languages, could have been Qashqai or Afshar. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I will restore the original revision per WP:VER and WP:OR, and will ask him to present his concerns on the talk page. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: Maria of Aragon

That's ok...when I get a chance, I'll try to find more references. I was just trying to fix all the names that RosieStroud changed, putting them back in English. Regards, Maragm (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Isabella of Angouleme

Hi,

Yes, that is my IP when I am using my mobile date outside of home. I use this account at home. Anyway, I’m saw the note you left on my page. I was not trying to start an edit war, I actually clarified with celia I actually was conforming to her conclusion of Isabella being born in 1188 and age 60 would be her age if we had used the other date of 1186. I left a note on her talk page already. Sorry if it seemed like an edit war. Cheers PrinceofFrancia (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Kansas Bear. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 17:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam

Do you perhaps know where I can get access to the newest versions of the EoI? - LouisAragon (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

concerns

Hey kansas Bear,

The editor Frasfras17 seems to have his own view of medieval scholars' ethnicity. Creating the template "Template:Arabic historians" while adding it to "Category:Arab Muslim historians of Islam", "Arab historians" and still claiming that "The template is called "Arabic historians" not "Arab historians" and it is concerned with historians of Arabic Tradition regardless of their ethnicity" I don't understand what he meant by "Arabic Tradition". He just translated the Arabic template "قالب:مؤرخو العصر الإسلامي" (Historians of the islamic age) and removed some historians from the original one. Why he changed "Historians of the islamic age" to "Arabic historians"? Isn't that pov pushing? Now he's adding some categories he created ("Medieval Moorish mathematicians", "Medieval Moorish astronomers"). You notice what ? They're all in a "Medieval Arab XXXX" category. Without talking about the things you mentioned here about him. This editor looks to me like a sock of the blocked sockpuppeteer Tarook97. The same editing patterns (adding arab everywhere...), the same place (saudi arabia) which links him even to user:Nabataeus (he's also from Saudi Arabia) and the same interests.... Regards ---Aṭlas (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I would notify Doug Weller of the continued POV editing. The weasel-like wording "Arabic tradition" is a POV label unsupported by any references. As for socks, your best bet is to file an SPI. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Aṭlas: They may be same person because I used Editor Interaction Analyser and this is the result: [185] So I suggest submitting a SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tarook97 --Wario-Man (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Geoffrey of Monmouth

Hi I edited the page “Geoffrey of Monmouth” adding date ranges. Would you like to check it out? PrinceofFrancia (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Still changing/removing information to suit your opinion, I see. Sources for c.1100

• Arthurian Writers: A Biographical Encyclopedia, Laura C. Lambdin, ‎Robert T. Lambdin, page 30.
• The Broadview Anthology of British Literature Volume 1, Joseph Black, ‎Leonard Conolly, ‎Kate Flint, page 164
• Arthurian Literature and Society, by S. Knight, Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, page 39
• Routledge Revivals: Medieval England (1998): An Encyclopedia, edited by Paul E. Szarmach, M. Teresa Tavormina, Joel T. Rosenthal
  

et.al.

I would like to know why you continue to manipulate dob(date of births) with no sources to back your edits! --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I did have sources to back my edits. Look up the page. What does in benefit me if he was born in 1090 or 1095 or 1100? There’s nothing to manipulate. Just search “Geoffrey of Monmouth born” and you get a variety of sources. It’s just that that’s what various sources say about him.

Have a look at “Monmouth University” page 37 by Jim Reme, Tova Navarra, Tova Navarra, R.N.

“Arthurian figures of history and legend” which I have cited.

“King Arthur: the mystery unraveled” page 26 by Chris Barber

“A concise history of wales” by geraint H Jenkins on page 84 which I have cited as well.

https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/61660/Berthold_John.pdf?sequence=2 Talks about the date range of his birth.

“Humanist Educational Theory, Gregory the Great, and Culinary Comedy” by Paul Maurice Clogan on page 151 also mentions he was born around then.

PrinceofFrancia (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyway sorry I don’t know how to font them as you have. But you get my point. Simply put, in the case of Geoffrey, the dates range from 1090 to 1100 (we don’t know) and since we have no concrete evidence we can simply put that it is a range in the infobox and use the average as the approximate PrinceofFrancia (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If I truly wanted to manipulate anything I probably wouldn’t tell you:/ I told you about it because I wanted to ask your opinion PrinceofFrancia (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• "What does in benefit me if he was born in 1090 or 1095 or 1100?"

Then why are you changing it, again?

• " Simply put, in the case of Geoffrey, the dates range from 1090 to 1100 (we don’t know) and since we have no concrete evidence we can simply put that it is a range in the infobox and use the average as the approximate"

Yeah, no. That is original research. You are interpreting(ie. "use the average as the approximate") what the sources state. We, as editors, can not do that.

I see no explanation why the dob can not be written, using reliable sources, thus;"c.1090/1095/1100". Since as you have shown these dates are mentioned by reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I changed it because it will be a handful to put so many dates in an infobox, and I’ve seen other articles like that of robert curthose among others put just one birth date (in this case 1051) and then mention in the introduction he was born anywhere from 1051-1053. As a reader, it would look like quite a handful to put the infobox with 3 different birth dates.

As for the average, let me explain my way of thinking. Firstly, since it could be any of the 3 dates, we mention it at the introduction that he could be born from 1090-1100. However, if we are going to use only 1 date like the Robert curthose article, it would make most sense to use the average because if we use either 1090 or 1100 there’s the likelihood we are 10 years off, whereas 1095 would at maximum be 5 years off.

However, if you think it won’t be a handful adding 3 dates to the infobox, then we could discuss it on the talk page and see what other Editors think.

Cheers PrinceofFrancia (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

• "I changed it because it will be a handful to put so many dates in an infobox..."

Yes, your overwhelming concern for amount of information in the infobox is so important to the construction of an online encyclopedia. LMAO.

Sounds like you are more interested in your own opinion than what reliable sources state. FYI, editors of that type do not last long here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Possibly so. But like I said, while I have used my opinion on putting an average date, I justified it with actual citations. What more, I discussed in on the talk group and anyone can feel free to disagree with me. Besides, it’s not like I’m stating an opinion without evidence or explanation

Cheers PrinceofFrancia (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Simply put, it’s not like I pulled a random date out of thin air but I used a median among 3 sources dates. PrinceofFrancia (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

But if you want to put in all 3 dates in the infobox by all means discuss it and do as you please PrinceofFrancia (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I can tell you do not care to listen and learn from what other editors tell you(your talk page for example). You have already been warned about ‘’’your’’’ synthesis and original research and have chosen to continue with both. There is nothing more to discuss. We are done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

Could you clarify your revert? The overwhelming majority of sources do indeed list al-Jazari as an Arab. The sheer quantity of materials that could be provided for his Arab background far exceed that of any other background, meaning the statement is valid. This (Observatory) pattern is used in numerous other articles. Nabataeus (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I got this straight. You specifically searched for al-Jazari and Arab and found *shocker* sources stating al-Jazari as Arab.

• "This (Observatory) pattern is used in numerous other articles."

OH? In your 5 months and 123 edits, you know this how? And the fact that we should adhere to NPOV means what?

And to highlight your "search" for al-Jazari and his ethnicity:

• The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us the Renaissance, by Jim Al-Khalili.

Al-Khalili is a theorectical physicist and has no specialization in Islamic history, Islam, medieval history, etc.

• Boilerplate: History's Mechanical Marvel, by Paul Guinan, Anina Bennett.

Comic book artists?

• Distinguished Figures in Mechanism and Machine Science: Their Contributions and Legacies, by Marco Ceccarelli.

Ceccarelli is a mechanical engineer, not an historian

• The Shorter Science and Civilisation in China:3, by Joseph Needham, Colin A. Ronan.

Joseph Needham's specialization was Chinese history & technology. Colin A. Ronan, history of science, though his specialization appears to be astronomy. No mention of Islamic history.

• Ancient Engineers' Inventions: Precursors of the Present, by Cesare Rossi, Flavio Russo

Cesare Rossi, department of Engineering Industry. Flavio Russo, Engineering degree. Not historians.

• Timelines of Science, DK publishing.

Unreliable source.

• Science: The Definitive Visual Guide, DK publishing.

Unreliable source.

• Robot Scientist, Kevin Cunningham.

Appears to be a children's book. Kevin Cunningham is the author of more than 30 children's books. His books include a series on diseases in history and several books on global disasters. He lives near Chicago.

So out of all this. Even the Needham source(Cambridge published) falls a bit short.

As I told the pro-Kurdish IP(in July 2017), "FYI, just because you find something that agrees with what you think, does not make it a reliable source for Wikipedia." --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

So to clarify my explanation. This type of editing is POV pushing. Plain and simple. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• OH? In your 5 months and 123 edits, you know this how? And the fact that we should adhere to NPOV means what?

Ought to tone your aggressive attitude down a notch. And I didn't know that my edits correspond with my Wikipedia dwelling. Quite interesting. I've been browsing Wikipedia for some years now, if that answers your concerns.

• Al-Khalili is a theorectical physicist and has no specialization in Islamic history, Islam, medieval history, etc.

Al-Khalili specialize in many fields, he studied the history of Islam and authored multiple titles. His statement could be verified by other sources.

• Ceccarelli is a mechanical engineer, not an historian

Ceccarelli is the Chairman of the Permanent Commission for the history of Machine and Mechanism of Science. He is held as an engineer historian. If you haven't noticed, al-Jazari is influential figure in the field of engineering.

• Joseph Needham's specialization was Chinese history & technology. Colin A. Ronan, history of science, though his specialization appears to be astronomy. No mention of Islamic history.

His specialization is the history of science (astronomy is part of that field), The book is published by Cambridge. I would say quite reliable material. Not the ideal however.

• Cesare Rossi, department of Engineering Industry. Flavio Russo, Engineering degree. Not historians.

Both of them are engineer historians, who are acquainted with the influential figures of their field (al-Jazari is one of them).

Although some of your other concerns for the reliability of sources are legitimate, the same criteria you applied to them, could be applied to other sources provided in the body of the article for his ethnicity.

• Building Tomorrow's Leaders Today: On becoming a Polymath Leader - By Kaveh Yazdani

The source that assert on his Kurdish background appears to be unreliable. The author specialize in the Social Science and history of South and West Asia between 17 and 20 centuries.

• http://library.clevelandart.org/taxonomy/term/44796

A web page of museum that lack any results? Really!

• https://beta.sciencemuseum.org.uk/stories/2017/1/26/why-robot-unraveling-our-robotic-fascination

Unreliable.

Still, the fact remain: al-Jazari in most sources is regarded as an Arab. The problem is your arbitrary definition of POV pushing. Other than that; What are your thoughts on the above sources for his Kurdish/Persian background? Does it fulfil your credibility standard?

Nabataeus (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Still, the fact remain: al-Jazari in most sources is regarded as an Arab."

Then you won't have any problems getting consensus to support your opinion.

• "The problem is your arbitrary definition of POV pushing."

HA! This coming from the person that thinks comic book artists and children's books are reliable sources for Islamic history on Wikipedia. LMAO!

• "What are your thoughts on the above sources for his Kurdish/Persian background?"

As for the sources as currently used in the article, see here.

As of 10 May 2017 the article appeared as this, and had been subjected to numerous ethnicity-driven edit wars. The conversation on the talk page was an attempt to alleviate said edit wars.

I would suggest if you want to add that comment to the article, then start a discussion and get consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Then you won't have any problems getting consensus to support your opinion.

I believe it will take some time, if ever, before I receive responds. Only few scarce sources go against his Arab origin.

• HA! This coming from the person that thinks comic book artists and children's books are reliable sources for Islamic history on Wikipedia. LMAO!

Reliable? I think not. Admittedly my caution for using qualified materials was high at the beginning, however I used few sources without examination from google books page. Which could be verified by reliable secondary sources.

• As for the sources as currently used in the article, see here.

Then per that, the source would be removed. Before I proceed in the matter, you didn't address the two unreliable sources (Museum pages) that support the Persian claim. Also Carl W. Hall appears to be the opposite of historian, his main fields are food science and technology (His most popular book (with other authors): Drying and Storage of Grains and Oilseeds. And authored an encyclopedia of food engineering). Far from being authoritative source.

Nabataeus (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said before, you did a simple blanket search of "al-Jazari and Arab" and think that supports your opinion.

As for the "sources" for Persian, at the time of my moving the Jazari's ethnicity to the body of the article Persian had one source. Therefore, those two sources must have been added later.

Also, if you have a point, I would suggest you make it.

As per the comments made by the other editors in the conversation, I took what were, in my opinion, inferior sources(for all 3 ethnicities) and presented them equally in the article. FYI, Carl W. Hall, MA in mechanical engineering. Which is no different than one of the sources for Arab, Burghardt having degrees in mechanical engineering.

And, I would suggest you take your concerns to the talk page and gain consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the Saladin, Ayyubid dynasty

may i have a word with you online? like on either insta or twitter, just trying to explain my point, wouldn't take much of your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovahkiiniq (talk • contribs) 01:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

No. Consensus is discussed on the talk page(s) of the relevant articles. Even the Cambridge History of Iran source, which you use, states, "...but by the 10th century they were accounted Kurdish." This is found on page 32. Which, if you read the page, you already know that.

Also, if you are a blocked editor using another account(sockpuppet). This will not end well for you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Check this SPI. -Aṭlas (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Good call, Atlas! Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Another sock (Arabos) blocked. -Aṭlas (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Kars/Mosul

Hi, i saw that you corrected my erroneous edit of the article on the battle of Kars and i thank you for that. Just to inform you that the source that is used for the battle of Kars is also used for the article on the battle of Mosul. I had doubts about this source and i posted it on the talk page, but since i was not sure, i deleted my edit to check that more precisely. You seem to be well informed on this topic, have you found any mention of this so called "battle of Mosul" (1745) in a reliable source ? i checked "Encyclopedia Iranica" and the "Cambridge history of Iran" without success. Thank you in advance for your help. - Wikaviani (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that Sykes is also used for Battle of Mosul (1745). Considering that the Yazdi source is unverifiable, I have not found any reliable source(s) for a battle at Mosul in 1745. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

If this battle does not have a reliable source it may be that it did not exist and in this case it would be necessary to request a deletion of the article, right ? - Wikaviani (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

That is the end result. I have asked LouisAragon if he can find anything. Once he gives me his results I will move towards either keep or delete. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your precious help. - Wikaviani (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your message on my page

Kansas Bear, where is this editing war? Please post a link and try to be helpful on this public encyclopedia. And try not to assume everyone on here has ill intentions. Vandalism would be very clear, and please refrain from bias, because if you are contacting me you should be contacting others. LebaneseBebe (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You are edit warring on the Madrasa article.

• "Please post a link and try to be helpful on this public encyclopedia."

1.[186]
2.[187]
3.[188]

• "And try not to assume everyone on here has ill intentions."

I can count. Any revert, whole or partial is still a revert. Thus still edit-warring.

• "Vandalism would be very clear, and please refrain from bias, because if you are contacting me you should be contacting others."

If this is how you react to an Edit warring alert, clearly you have the issue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Nisibis (252)

I hope i do not bother you with my questions. Have you any information about a battle of Nisibis in 252 ? i found the article without a single source, i added a source for the outcome of the battle but when i think about it, it seems that my edit is OR because my source does not clearly states who took the city (Ardashir I or Shapur I). I have numerous sources stating that Ardashir took the city in 235 AD or 237 AD : [189], [190], but nothing clear about a battle between the Romans and the Sasanians at Nisibis in 252. I think the date of this battle is wrong, it's probably the battle of Nisibis won by the Persians in 235 or 237, if so, then the article should be renamed and the informations updated. Any idea ? Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Cambridge source you linked to states "[Ardashir] capturing Nisibis and Harran in 237 and 238". So Nisibis was taken in 237, then Gordian takes it back in 242. Gordian dies and then Philip the Arab signs a treaty with Shapur giving up Armenia and a lot of money(no mention of Nisibis). According to Patricia Southern, coins were still minted indicating Roman rule up to Decius' reign(June 251).[191]. Christian Lange implies that Nisibis was already under Sasanian control by the time of his third campaign(intervening in Armenia as early as 252).[192] Encyclopaedia Iranica states(actually saying a "tradition exists in Arabic sources") that Arab sources mention Shapur's taking of Nisibis at the start of his third campaign(Armenia) and that Shapur killed all the Roman soldiers and sold the populace into slavery.[193]

AND, according to Peter Edwell, he quotes al-Tabari regarding a siege of Nisibis during the 11th regnal year of Shapur, yet Edwell contends this siege is not mentioned elsewhere, the chronology is incorrect, and did not fit Shapur's strategy.[194]. Consequently, Dodgeon & Lieu state that Nisibis was not listed in the SKZ as one of the cities captured by Shapur in 252.[195]

So, short answer: Since we have no definitive source(s) stating a siege occurred in 252 it should be deleted or renamed.

• "I hope i do not bother you with my questions."

Not a bother. This is a community encyclopedia. We are supposed to work together. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your detailed answer. Since we have reliables sources supporting the fall of the city in 237 (or 235), i think we should rename the article and update it, but i don't know if we can change the title of an article or if we have to delete it and open it back with the correct title.---Wikaviani (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea concerning that. Might ask an Admin and see if they know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks !---Wikaviani (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

WeWuzPhoenicians

Got blocked temporarily. I opened a SPI.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a sock of Ehsan iq : [196]. You were right about them. Good call. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Iranica new entries

• New Online Entries
  • Massagetae by Rüdiger Schmitt

Would be useful if you like to expand Massagetae. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hunayn ibn Ishaq

Please keep an aye on the Hunayn ibn Ishaq article. There is a user who is trying to push a POV and delete referenced material. Viaros17 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Might be more useful to keep an eye on Viaros17's contribs. They're not the nicest person, and I say that as not the nicest person myself. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree with Pinkbeast about Viaros17. This user is a POV editor and makes battleground comments about other users contributions : [197], [198]. By the way, your opinions are welcome about this topic. Sorry Kansas, i don’t mean to have a dispute about Viaros17 on your talk page. —>Farawahar (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Charles II of Naples

Yep, I am. Anyway, i know what small days, but if you look through a few sources you will see that Charles II has birth dates ranging from 1248-1254. Like with Geoffrey of Monmouth, it’s a range. 1253 is an average PrinceofFrancia (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Or 1250 would be another average. Because 1248,1250,1253 and 1254 are all given PrinceofFrancia (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

In that case, stay off my talk page from now on. I have seen editors like you before. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

church of Amsoldingen in Amsoldingen, Switzerland

I respect your entry as being pointed out as being verbatim to the accounting as made in the referenced historical documentation of: (Marianne) Rumpf 1977, p. 182. However, I merely was intending to edit to the correct entry of the spelling for the benefit of the readers as it is actually: the church of Amsoldingen in Amsoldingen, Switzerland Nowhere have we been able to locate that it is spelled the same as you have pointed out, beyond the used/listed reference. Perhaps the editor and/or translator of Marianne Rumpf's works made an oversight and did not catch the author's/translator's mistake, I don't know. Thank you however for redirecting to your reference used. If you know of or find any sound references that do use the same spelling as Rumpf uses, could you please include for my benefit and correction. Thank you.

Asuthnfatboy (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you KansasBear for the update and added information. Your notes were found to be quite insightful. Asuthnfatboy (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System

Don't post on my talk page again.

1. Don’t stalk my edits.

2. Learn to sign your posts and start a new section properly.

3. Next time there won’t be a warning regarding your inappropriate behavior, I will notify an Admin.

4. Stay off my talk page.--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Scythians: Please comment

We want to rewrite the lead section. Would you please participate and comment here? Talk:Scythians#New_Iranica_article Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Dandamayev, Pythagoras

• Dandamaev, M. A. (1989). A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire. BRILL. p. 153. ISBN 978-9004091726. During the period of Achaemenid rule in Miletus, which was the most important city of Ionia, there lived the eminent philosopher Anaximander and the geographer and historian Hecataeus. The famous mathematician Pythagoras was born and lived part of his life on the island of Samos, which was also subject to the Persians.

As far as I remember, Samos was incorporated into the empire in ~ 517 BC. According to the sources found at the GA-class article of Pythagoras, that would be after he left Samos. Do you perhaps know whether Samos was already subjected, perhaps in a different way (i.e. without military), by the Achaemenids before 530? Dandamayev is a reputable sources vis-a-vis Achaemenid/Ancient Greek history, hence my confusion. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Pythagoras born c.570BC

Croesus calls for troops to fight Persians is defeated by Cyrus the Great 546 BC. Dandamaev mentions that Croesus calls his allies including the tyrant of Samos.

"The philosopher Pythagoras was also on Samos during his(Polycrates) reign but left for Croton about 531 BC, perhaps out of dissatisfaction with his dictatorship." ~~Polycrates, Grant, Michael (2012). The rise of the Greeks (1st American ed.). Scribners. pp. 153–156. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Cambyses initiates campaign against Egypt. Polycrates of Samos joins Cambyses as an ally(524 BC).

Polycrates is assassinated(522 BC) and a Persian force occupies Samos(517 BC).

The sentence could/?should? be read as Pythagoras came from Samos, and then as a continuation of the subject of the paragragh(Persian occupation/influence) that Samos was also under Persian authority. Dandamayev does not blantantly state Pythagoras living under Persian influence compared to the previous sentence, "During the period of Achaemenid rule in Miletus,[....], there lived...". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks alot for the careful evaluation, I think you're spot on. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

References

New revelation

Did you know it was EVEN part of the Roman Empire?! [199] - LouisAragon (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Is, Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity), what the IP is talking about??? The lead mentions Roman rule referenced by Hovannisian(non-viewable). Whereas, Sophene, Gordyene, and Adiabene: Three Regna Minora of Northern Mesopotamia, by Michał Marciak, page 135-136, 377, mentions a Greater Armenia. But what would being under Roman rule have to do with being "in" Europe? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Textbook e-nationalistic pov-pushing. This part cracked me up as well: "Armenia has had very close contact with Europe throughout it's history". Whats next; Algeria is in Europe because the Vandals held sway over it? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

TonyBallioni (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Afghan-Sikh War

Sir excuse me I added references to article afghan Sikh war why u removed thatAma975193 (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Ama975193 (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2018

No. You copied sources from individual battles and have presented them as sources for the result of the war. Take your concerns to the article talk page and provide quotes for the sources you are using. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Stongay

Hi Kansas Bear, you posted a warning on user:Stongay's talk page just below my caution notification. If this warning was for the Genghis Khan article, it seems that user:Stongay was right, the source he tried to remove is completely unreliable (user:GreanMeanGo drew my attention on this point). It's your call of course to do so or not, but according to me, in this case, the warning should be removed from his talk page. take care. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC).

Hi Kansas Bear and Wikaviani: I am really new to this and I dont use this often. I was reading Genghis Khan article, noticed an unreliable reference, and I just removed that minor sentence. Since I am really new to this, I dont know how things are done and I really didnt even mean to go into edit war. Now, I know how the community works.

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

user:Fofo235

Hey Kansas,

This editor is unquestionably an edit warrior with a nationalist agenda. I'm suspecting that he's a sock of user:kingesh. kingesh shows some similarities in his editing behavior with the blocked sockpuppeteer user:Ehsan iq-Aṭlas (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Fofo235's English is patchy[200] compared to Ehsan iq's[201]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Perso-Roman wars of 337–361

Hi. Sorry for late reply. I read both old revision and your revision, compared them, and your revision is much much better. Old revision was almost based on a single source and primary stuff while your revision represents diverse sources and scholars' works. Old revision had some kind of biased tone while your revision is neutral. Good work and keep it up. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your comment

Based on your suggestion, we have proposed the same at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite_siteban_proposal. this is to let you know. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Might be of use

[202] - LouisAragon (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Indy Beetle and Nick-D on the Katangese Gendarmes and India during World War II Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at two important treaties of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Jalairs

• Jalairs

What's your opinion about this?[203] I have already replied to him.[204] --Wario-Man (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

About jalairs

No im not Limbozz

I just say that according to Rashid-al-Din Hamadani's Jami al tawarikh jalairs are not Darliqin Mongol

Darliqin Mongol(مغول درلکین) tribes according to Rashid-al-Din Hamadani's Jami' al-tawarikh are this tribe (From page 147 to 182)(The photo is taken from the original book of Juma Al-Tawariqh in persian language)  : http://uupload.ir/files/6kjb_darlikin_mongols_147_-_182.png

Jalair tribe according to Rashid-al-Din Hamadani's Jami' al-tawarikh: (Jami' al-tawarikh page 65) http://uupload.ir/files/trl_jalair_65_-_73.png

Read the Jami' al-tawarikh before you judge me.

You wrote this to me:

similar relationships to the Ilkhanids: both families were descended from Mongol tribes (the Jalayirids and the Sulduz.." -- Kingship and Ideology in the Islamic and Mongol Worlds, Anne F. Broadbridge, Page 156. "The Jalayirids probably first appear in the mid-thirteenth century as one of the Mongol tribes making up Hulegu's army." -- The Persians, Gene R. Garthwaite, Page 154. "Arghun Aqa, a Mongol Administrator A Mongol from the Oirat tribe, Arghun Aqa was born c. 1210 and at an early age entered the service of the Jalayirid (Jalayir Mongol tribe) emir Qadan. -- Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule, George Lane, Page 101. "Jalayirids Mongol dynasty in Iraq (Mesopotamia), western Iran, and Azerbaijan 1336-1432, -- Islam: art and architecture, Markus Hattstein, ‎Peter Delius, Page 615. "THE JALAYIRIDS The name Jalayir is derived from that of a large and important Mongol tribe." -- The Cambridge History of Iran: The Timurid and Safavid periods, William Bayne Fisher, page 5.

Yes، because They come with Mongols. In iran some times we call the Azerbaijani mongol. Tsakhur people of republic of azerbaijan call azerbaijani "mongol"

" History of Mongolia, Volume II, 2003" This is the source that you selected wrong because jalairs are not Darliqin Mongol. Louisol (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not care what a primary source states when I have multiple secondary sources stating something else. I do not care what they call Azerbaijani's in Iran. I am only interested in what secondary sources state.

• "Yes، because They come with Mongols. In iran some times we call the Azerbaijani mongol. Tsakhur people of republic of azerbaijan call azerbaijani "mongol""

That is called original research.

I am not going to read Jami al-Tawarikh, nor do I believe you are not a sockpuppet. Anyone that so blatantly ignores what modern academics state about the Jalayirids and continues to push their own agenda is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Louisol; Kansas Bear has already clarified why you're wrong. Wikipedia does not work like that. Read WP:NOT. I should remind you there were several users who had similar behavior like yours and now all of them are blocked. Even sockpuppetry and creating new accounts can't do anything for them. This is an encyclopedia and it's not a free forum/media for representing personal opinions of users. --Wario-Man (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Sasan Hero

Why u remove my true text? Sasan Hero (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Where is your source? This is the second time I have stated the information you are posting is NOT mentioned in the source provided. Post your source, with the page number and quote on the article talk page and this issue will be resolved. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi,Kansas Bear, my explanation part in my page not work ,one editor has locked it Sasan Hero (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

And also I can't add disscaution because it's locked Sasan Hero (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It is clear you can not communicate in English, therefore you should not be editing this encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I can writing English enough to communication with other editors ,and I am always useful for English wikipedia because always I adding reliable information ,and adding important information that not exist before ,so I think ,I should be continue editing because it's help wiki pages to improve ,and every time that I understand I can't help I stop editing forever ...thank you... Sasan Hero (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• "I can writing English enough to communication with other editors.."

Nope. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I can write English enough to communicate with other editors.Right? ...Thanks... Sasan Hero (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly not. Do not post here again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your tireless efforts to improve this encyclopedia, as you did for example here. Take care. ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikaviani! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the use of so-called "substandard" manpower in armies Interview: On the Bugle turning 150 (issues that is!) Op-ed: TomStar81 on the collapse of empires at the close of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

YouTube account

Ehsan.iq's YouTube account, actively spreading the same crap he tried to spread on Wikipedia, now on YouTube comment sections.[205] - LouisAragon (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't see anything. Perhaps they've removed all the content there? --Ebyabe (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: Yeah, he either removed all content from his feed, or you need to be "friends" with him. I personally think its the latter. Anyways, I just watched a random vid about a historic battle in which Arabs were involved, and I found Ehsan.iq spreading the same crap he tried to spread on Wikipedia. You can scroll down to the comment posted by a certain "CuzImMOODY" (dated three weeks ago), where he says "Arabs always kicking persians asses". If you open the other comments listed at that specific comment, you can see Ehsan.iq participating. This all means he's still very active. We can thus conclude that his "activities" are not just limited to Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat and Wikipedia (see SPI for more information), but also YouTube. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess when Ehsan can't handle reality, he runs from one social media to another bemoaning how history really happened. Hell, there are certain people on Youtube who contend the Confederate States of America had nothing to do with slavery. Guess they never heard of the Cornerstone speech. In short, there are delusional people everywhere, believing all sorts of nonsense. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: It's an example of WP:OTHERSITES and it's not odd because we already have a similar case. See [206] and [207]. See the comments of these videos [208], [209], and [210]. Don't they sound familiar? The strange thing is Ehsan.iq's rants are very similar to comments on this Ottoman-Safavid war video.[211] Do you think it's a coincident or we're dealing with a group of related accounts? --Wario-Man (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

And this one --Wario-Man (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

POVFORK

I made some tweaks to this WP:POVFORK / WP:POV-loaded article.[212] Your thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That "article" has problems.

• 1) the entire article is a travesty of English
• 2)the second paragraph of the Background section is completely unsourced
• 3)the first two paragraphs of History section are completely unsourced
• 4)the Aftermath section is completely unsourced, and there are large portions throughout the article which have no sourcing what so ever. Not to mention the source from 1858!

If reliable sources can be found, then a complete rewrite would be in order. That particular article suffers from similar problems found at Perso-Roman wars of 337–361, prior to its major rewrite. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I was afraid you'd say that. Though, I shouldn't be too surprised, given said users editorial pattern. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday I requested title change for this article. However I just realized that the precise date remains uncertain. Hence, picking "344" probably wouldn't be the best choice. Would like to hear your thoughts. Bear in mind, we now also have Siege of Singara (360). - LouisAragon (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that will be a conundrum.

• "In 343/344/348 Shapur met Constantius in a battle near Singara. During the night the larger part of the Sasanid army, which had been held back by Shapur as a reserve, emerged unexpectedly from behind the overlooking heights, and routed the Romans."

I was trying to decide how to phrase the article(Battle of Singara(pick a year)) properly, just after the major rewrite of Perso-Roman wars of 337–361, but I am still not sure. What both articles need is some Persian oriented sources, in my opinion. The Perso-Roman Wars article is overly heavy in Western oriented sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

AND, Siege of Singara has been inundated with outdated historiography(Pinnock's, Gibbon, Marcellinus) and non-specialized(An Encyclopedia of World History) sources. The same editor left the Perso-Roman wars of 337–361 a mish-mash of POV wording, confused context, and undue weight. Have you read Siege of Singara? Same garbage. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I have read it. Its crappy as F. I dont know why people still rely on non-RS stuff (anno 2018!) when its so easy to access proper sources (i.e. Google.books). Oh well, lets keep it at "344" for now in order to create room for the 360 siege and other dates. We can solve it later. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Notes & References

References

Sources

• Barnes, T. D. (1980). "Imperial Chronology, A. D. 337-350". Phoenix. Vol. 34, No. 2 (Summer). {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Crawford, Peter (2016). Constantius II: Usurpers, Eunuchs, and the Antichrist. Pen & Sword. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Syvanne, Ilkka (2015). Military History of Late Rome 284-361. Pen & Sword. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Achaemenid map

Hi Kansas Bear. By the way, I think User:LouisAragon pinged you [213] for comments on a proposal for a better map of the Achaemenid Empire. Would you have some time to spare to look into the matter? (Discussion here) पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hi! I noticed you've been reverting vandalism quite a bit, so I wanted to see if you knew about something called Twinkle. It is essentially a software on Wikipedia which users can use after they have had an account for 4 days and made 10 edits, that makes many forms of editing, notably reverting vandalism, much easier. This includes the ability to quickly tag articles, mark them for deletion, quickly rollback one's edits to a page, quickly warn users, report users to administrators, and much more. The details are outlined on the documentation page. To install Twinkle, go to your preferences, and navigate to the "Gadgets" tab. Under the "Browsing" section, check off the box to the left of the following sentence: "Twinkle: automate common tasks such as reporting vandalism, warning vandals, requesting deletion, welcoming users, and tagging articles (preferences)." Let me know if you have any questions about this, and thank you for your work with fighting vandalism!--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 03:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity of a medieval scholar

A new user has appeared and disagrees with all other editors. Your comment would be helpful as always: link to discussion --Wario-Man (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kansas Bear. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for copying that comment over to the Ayyubid dynasty talk page. I'm always loath to criticize other editors, because I really don't want to get into the kind of personalized argument that happened here. But when I see big chunks of sourced and relevant text disappearing, it's hard not to step in. I try to phrase criticism to focus on specific actions, not presumed motivations, but I know it can be easy to take things personally. Anyhow, it seems the initial defensiveness may have transformed into willingness to assist, so maybe all's well that ends well. Rupert Clayton (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Rupert Clayton. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Odd additions

This new user and these stuff [214], [215], [216] --Wario-Man (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Uzbek POV pusher? First source The Modern Uzbeks, page 215 does not contain the word "Turon"/"Turan". I would revert and ask for quotes and page numbers on the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

These edits to Mihirakula,[217][218], Xionites,[219][220][221] tamgas,[222][223] Kujula Kadphises[224][225], etymology,[226][227][228][229] and Wusun[230][231] are also mysterious. Krakkos (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I have read the SPI. Most likely a case of Wikipedia:ROPE. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Fitting title?

I just noticed this new article (Xerxes’s inscription). What about changing the title into "Inscription of Xerxes I at Van"? Your input would be much appreciated as always. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A major rewrite and source verification, is definitely in order. As for the name, Xerses I's inscription at Van? Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I'm gonna try salvage it. As for the title, I think your suggestion is better. Btw, would you agree with my rationale here?[232]-[233] - LouisAragon (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm planning on creating an article about the brief Safavid occupation of Basra in 1697-1701.[234]-[235]-[236]-[237]-[238]. The period/events seems to be of historical significance (mentioned/covered in numerous high-quality sources). As Basra was an Ottoman territory before the Safavid takeover, perhaps something like Safavid occupation of Basra (1697-1701) could do the trick? Curious for your opinion. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I think Safavid occupation of Basra (1697-1701), sounds like an excellent article title. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Completely rewrote it (Xerses I's inscription at Van) and left the "original author" a polite note.[239] - LouisAragon (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Source verification

• [240] and [241]
• [242] and [243] --Wario-Man (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The first link, previously viewable, checked out. I can not view the second the link.

The second set of links check out, "Both authorities indicate that the ancestor of the Bal'amis was an Arab tribesman of Tamim in the early days of Islam, but by the former he is said to have accompanied Maslama b. 'Abd, al-Malik and by the latter, Kutayba b. Muslim."

Ask for a quote for each reference. Should clear up any misunderstandings. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Antioch

Hello Kansas Bear. As I asked here [1], why you did revert? Shahanshah5 (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings !

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Kansas Bear, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, ---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikaviani! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Harassment on Wikidata

You might wanna check this out.[244]-[245] Probably LTA Lagoo sab.[246]-[247] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Almenêches Abbey) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Almenêches Abbey.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work! Could possibly include something on the location of the abbey if possible? Regards

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Explaining my edit in Urartu page

Hi!

The reason I made my edit in the Urartu page (removing the supposed etymological Urartian names, as sourced from Enclopaedia Iranica) is because a) this information is provided previously on the Urartu page, so this is repeated information, almost verbatim and b) this information may not be (even according to other Enclopaedia Iranica pages) correct (i.e. many of these names are Iranian etymologically, such as Didarsis and Tigra, and some of them are either Iranian or Armenian, such as Araxa/Arakha).

Please see my contribution in the Urartu Talk page for more information:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartu#/talk/3

Thank you so much for your time.

Preservedmoose (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Bidar 1656 or 1657?

Thanks for finding a source for the siege of Bidar in Mughal Empire. I noticed that you stayed with the earlier Wikipedia text of "In 1657, ...", but the source says the siege ended on 18 April 1656. Should Wikipedia say 1656, or is it a different calendar thing, or did Yazdani get that wrong, or what? --Worldbruce (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably a typo, The Cambridge Shorter History of India states the siege was in 1657. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Compare this[248] with this[249] and this[250]-[251]-[252] I believe GP just admitted that he's Kavakdere. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Created a SPI[253] - LouisAragon (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

List of papal bulls

Thanks for your message. I also added the references you requested.--Britannicus (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ayyubids

Hello, I have seen your wanting. Please don't jump and start warning and fighting off. You are a foreigner and not related to the Arab world's history and do not understand it well. If you have read my comment in the talk page you would see that those "referenced informations" are biased and not correct and are propaganda. Your bias for a non existent "Kurds" is unacceptable and it is offensive to me. I am a descendant of Saladin, I am Ayybuid. And we are Arabs we are not kurds. I have my family tree and we have millions of history books that your western masters like to hide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C400:149D:A14E:3FE4:C9A3:982D (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

New message from Doug Weller

Hello, Kansas Bear. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 20:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doug Weller talk 20:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Amusement

I want you to laugh more...Kes Immak Akho Gahba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C400:149D:ADC8:A44:84B9:9645 (talk) 06:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Oxford University Press

You should consider getting access to OUP.[254] Not only does it give access to Oxford Reference,[255] but also to Oxford Handbooks[256] and a plethora of other Oxford online databases. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi,

Do you think that this book would be a reliable source to confirm that John, Count of Soissons died at the Battle of St. Quentin (1557)? :

https://books.google.com/books?id=SF8xAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA38&dq=john+bourbon+soissons+st.+quentin+1557&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8yq31pOThAhXzIDQIHd1NBR0Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=john%20bourbon%20soissons%20st.%20quentin%201557&f=false

Also, if not, why not? Futurist110 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Who is John Ronald Moreton-Macdonald? A writer, a Lieutenant in the British army, or an academic historian?

As for mentioning John, Count of Soissons' death at the Battle of St. Quentin in 1557, considering John's role in the battle is not clear and I have yet to find any source mentioning him as having a pivotal role in the battle, I have decided not to list him in the article. A helpful discussion can be found here.

Also,

• Notes Relative to Certain Matters Connected with French History, Volume 1, Temple Prime, is not a reliable source
• Armorial général de la France, Volume 1, Issue 1, Louis Pierre d' Hozier, Antoine Marie d' Hozier de Sérign, outdated and not a reliable source

--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation here. Also, are we never allowed to use 19th century sources on Wikipedia? As in, are these sources always outdated even if they are talking about historical events and historical people? Futurist110 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, I just want to clarify--are books by amateur writers/authors never actually allowed to be cited on Wikipedia? Futurist110 (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

So we should use any source simply because it says what we need? Then why use Wikipedia:RS?

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
• Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.--Kansas Bear (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Futurist110 I just collapsed your question at RS as being off-topic at that location, since that page is for the improvement of that guideline, not for discussion of individual sources. The proper place for it is at RSN and, if what I'm about to say doesn't satisfy you, you should feel free to copy it there. Having dealt with the bureaucracy, let me note that I agree with Kansas Bear that this is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. It was self-published (De Vinne Press was really just a printer, not a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) and self-published sources are not, generally, acceptable for use as reliable sources, see SPS and the following subsections for the policy and the exceptions. If the author, Temple Prime, had an established expertise as a historian or a genealogist, as confirmed by other published reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia, then it might be used but even that kind of expert source is always kind of dicey and there's no indication that he was anything other than an ordinary individual genealogist. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect/POV lede?

Mughal Empire

• "'It was established and ruled by the Timurid dynasty, with Turco-Mongol Chagatai roots from Central Asia, claiming direct descent from both Genghis Khan (through his son Chagatai Khan) and Timur,[12][13][14] and with significant Indian Rajput and Persian ancestry through marriage alliances;[15][16] the first two Mughal emperors had both parents of Central Asian ancestry, while successive emperors were of predominantly Persian and Rajput ancestry.[17]"

Dirk Collier (source nr. 17) seems to be non-WP:RS as far as I can see. A lawyer and businessman.[257] Having said that, if I would look at this lede as a "newb" reader, I would probably think that about every single Mughal ruler (except for Babur and Humayun) had a Persian or Rajput mother. Yet according to List of the mothers of the Mughal Emperors, out of 17 Queen mothers, only 3 were Persian and 3 Rajput. All other Queen mothers seem to have belonged to other groups. The word "significant" (not covered by the sources) was also added by the same user. The dynasty was founded by a scion of the Timurids and was thus of Turco-Mongol origin. Later, long after the foundation of the empire, did the rulers have offspring by women belonging to other ethnic groups. In this regard, the Mughals are somewhat comparable to the Ottoman dynasty (i.e. Turkic by origin, significant intermarriage later on). Thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

John Francis Templeson has started an ANI discussion involving you

Here [258]

suggestion

When you're writing about medieval nobleman, it really helps to link every place and every significant person. Sometimes the forms of names are different, and sometimes (for for France) they're only in the frWP, but they can still be linked. Often for places, the article in the frWP will be much better or more specific , and it should be possible to figure hout how to link to it also. If Ican help you with any ofthis, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I removed this 2016 edit as it was added without reference and explanation. Though I was able to find numerous references for Armenian architectural influence on Seljuk architecture, and Armenian builders/architects working on Ottoman buildings, I couldn't find anything about Armenian architectural influence (i.e. design etc.) on Ottoman architecture. According to Adalian:

In the same way, Seljuk Turk architecture in Anatolia, in its formative period in the 12th century and after, was heavily influenced by Armenian architecture (...) Although this influence did not extend to the Ottoman era, which was much more influenced by the abundance of Byzantine architectural samples, Armenian builders, however, had even a greater effect on the appearance of Ottoman architecture. -- Adalian, Rouben Paul (2010). Historical Dictionary of Armenia. p. 93

- LouisAragon (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, once I clicked on the link, the name was familiar. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

There's this other editor who's on a mission to establish an Uzbek "presence" without using RS sources to cover his edits.[259] I already encountered him twice before,[260]-[261] and have warned/notified him in May 2019.[262] - LouisAragon (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I believe you are aware of this as well? - LouisAragon (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Your insight

Hi, firstly, i hope you and yours are all doing well. You asked me to take a look at Siege of Singara (344) months ago, this is what i did today (Btw, soorry for the delay ...) since i had enough time, would you be so kind as to take a look at my changes please ? I have not finished to clean up the article yet, but i removed most of the outdated 19th century sources and tried to rewrite many parts of the article in a more neutral way (ex it was not a "decisive" Persian victory). Also, i think that the title of this article is irrelevant, it should be "Battle of Singara (344)", not "Siege of Singara (344)" since as far as i know, Shapur besieged Singara 3 times but never succeeded to take the city before 360. Thanks very much for your insght. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikaviani So far your changes look pretty good. One of my concerns was based, in part, to the re-write I did on Perso-Roman wars of 337–361, where in the article I referenced 3 different years for the siege/battle at Singara. If there are different sieges/battles over Singara is there enough information covering any of those battles to make a complete article or should we make a "Battle of Singara" and simply list each time Shapur fought there? Since you removed the outdated and unreliable sources, that has resolved another of my concerns. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: My apologies, i was wrong in my above comment, shapur besieged 3 times Nisibis, not Singara (and as far as i know, he faced defeat each time). However, your question still stands. On my end, i can say that sources covering the 3 sieges of Nisibis are quite rare, because months ago i tried to find some in order to create the 3 articles, therefore, creating a page about each of these battle sounds irrelevant for now because of the lack of reliable sources. Still remains the move i proposed above (Siege of Singara (344) ---> Battle of Singara (344)). @LouisAragon:, @HistoryofIran:, @Wario-Man: your thoughts are also more than welcome.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Fornovo...

...I thought the source mentioned Fornovo as a phyrric victory. I was in good faith. Actually, there was debate even at the time regarding who actually won.

I just tried to add detail to the article. Again I thought it was in there from the book. It was my mistake but I did not do it on purpose.

Cheers.

Barjimoa (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting

Thank you Kansas Bear for the interesting reference from Joseph Pérez. You will note that it is not Prof. Pérez himself who says this, but he is quoting Joseph Del Olmo, who - as prof. Pérez notes, wrote in 1680. It seems that Del Olmo was as anachronistic as Pedro Berruguete. Modern scholarship sets the first auto-de-fé at 1242 in Paris and the inquisition was not established until 1231. If you can find a modern scholar who says that the inquisition was active in 1206 and that St. Dominic took part in it, I would be interested to know this - and of course the Wikipedia page on Auto da fé would need to be updated as well.Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damascus road (talk • contribs) 05:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Question

Do you think that this would be a reliable source for the claim that Louise d'Artois died from typhus? : Brook-Shepherd, Gordon. (1991). The Last Empress – The Life and Times of Zita of Austria-Hungary 1893–1989. If Google Books is correct, this book likewise contains this information. I can't access this book itself, though. Thus, I don't know what its source for this information is. Futurist110 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Margaret of Valois

I don't understand where I should post quotes from Viennot's book. I understand your doubts about defining Margaret of Valois a "living legend of her era", but on the nickname invented by Alexandre Dumas, it is enough to see the French page on the queen: this is a well-known information, in the public domain. Besides the book by Kathleen Wellman, have you read other books on the subject?

I apologize for the possible errors, English is not my native language. --Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

First off, this is English Wikipedia therefore English sources are preferred. As for;

• "...but on the nickname invented by Alexandre Dumas, it is enough to see the French page on the queen.."

Wikipedia can not be used to reference Wikipedia articles.

• "this is a well-known information, in the public domain."

Wikipedia is written using secondary sources, not "well-known information" or someone's opinion.

As for using Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de Brantôme, this appears to be a primary source translated by a nurse, which means it would not qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia.

I would strongly suggest not edit warring to use a primary source over an academic secondary source.

• "I don't understand where I should post quotes from Viennot's book."

You are incapable of finding the article talk page? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for not having answered your questions before, but if you do not reply in my User talk, the notification cannot arrive. Regarding the nickname of Queen Margot invented by Alexandre Dumas in 1844, I leave you the official site of Margaret's most important French scholar, Éliane Viennot, in which there is a list of the news that led to the formation of the myth of "Queen Margot": Apparition des motifs légendaires.

"You are incapable of finding the article talk page?"

Regarding the question "living legend", I will write in the article talk page.

In any case, I would like to ask you again: in addition to Wellman's book, have you read other books on Margaret of Valois and on the political role of women in the French Renaissance?--Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• "I would like to ask you again: in addition to Wellman's book, have you read other books on Margaret of Valois and on the political role of women in the French Renaissance?"

Why? It is immaterial what I have or have not read concerning the "political role of women in the French Renaissance". The only thing that is important is writing what the source states, not an interpretation of what the source states. If the source does not say what it is suppose to reference, then it is original research.

Regarding "living legend", a source has to state Margaret was a living legend, and not your interpretation of a "living legend".

Continued addition(s) of Wikipedia:OR can be a reason for a block or ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I asked you if you had read other books because I have been reading books on Margaret for more than ten years and honestly I don't think you can understand a topic if you read only one book about it. Have you read the translation I left in the talk of the article and the chronology of the legendary elements attached to the life of the queen made by Viennot? The connection between the "black legend" of the queen and the nickname invented by Dumas is given by the fact that the nickname was very famous and was used for marketing by numerous writers and historians (even nowadays). In this regard I leave the link for a very interesting article. It's in English don't worry: «History as Voyeurism: from Marguerite De Valois to La Reine Margot»

Frankly, I don't understand what you mean by "original research". I added the book by Wellman as a source because I seemed to remember that it was written, partly because it is based largely on the historical reconstruction elaborated by Viennot. I read it about two years ago and my only mistake was not to read it again carefully, to look for a precise quotation. As a last resort I added as a source the book of Viennot I own, which expressly uses the term "legend", referring to Margaret and all the great aristocrats who survived the period of the French wars of religion. If we are considered a "legend" while we are still alive, are we not therefore "living legends"? --Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• " I don't understand what you mean by "original research"."

Then I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:OR.

• "I asked you if you had read other books because I have been reading books on Margaret for more than ten years and honestly I don't think you can understand a topic if you read only one book about it."

I could care less what you think. An interesting statement from an editor some years ago, "it isn't what you know about something, but what you can prove". Using a source to falsely claim someone was a living legend or that Dumas invented a nickname is original research...and source misrepresentation.

• "If we are considered a "legend" while we are still alive, are we not therefore "living legends"?"

Sounds like original research to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I could care less what you think. An interesting statement from an editor some years ago, "it isn't what you know about something, but what you can prove". Using a source to falsely claim someone was a living legend or that Dumas invented a nickname is original research...and source misrepresentation.

I don't understand your point of view. You keep saying that I invented news when I brought you various sources that prove what I say. Above all, I don't understand why you insist on not understanding that the nickname "La Reine Margot" was invented by Dumas, who named the first novel on the Valois trilogy. I ask you: did you read the article by Sluhovsky? Have you read the chronology written by Viennot (Margaret's most authoritative biographer) on her site? It seems to me that you are answering me without knowing the subject we are talking about. What evidence do you have in favor of your point of view?

:Sounds like original research to me.

Maybe for you. I call it deductive reasoning. --Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• "I don't understand your point of view."

Hmmm, that everything that is added to an article should have a reliable source and that said source states what it is referencing. (begin sarcasm)Yeah, clearly this is extremely vague on my part( end sarcasm).

• "I call it deductive reasoning."

No, that is original research. Per Wikipedia:OR, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."

• "You keep saying that I invented news when I brought you various sources that prove what I say."

And this is misrepresentation on your part.

1.You added unsourced information(concerning "living legend" and some other details, here. I removed it stating it was unsourced.

2.Then you re-added the information using 5 pages out of Wellman's book, in which Wellman makes no mention of "living legend"(which is original research) or Dumas inventing the nickname for Margaret(source misrepresentation). I removed it.

3.Then you re-added the information again using different sources, which I removed(June 30th) after no response from you on your talk page(June 27th).

This is exactly how you have edited the Margaret of Valois article. Original research, source misrepresentation, and edit warring. Each one a violation of Wikipedia.

• "It seems to me that you are answering me without knowing the subject we are talking about."

And it seems to me that you are trying to make this personal, comment on the content not on the editor.

• "What evidence do you have in favor of your point of view?"

Evidence favoring what "point of view"? I have not edited the article since 30 June 2019‎. A glaring fact that has totally escaped your notice. Again, another personalized comment.

I will say this one more time since you do not seem to understand, I do not care what is added to the article, as long as it is referenced by reliable source(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

The concept extrapolated from the paragraph I quoted does not seem to me at all an original research or a synthesis that alters what Viennot meant to say. The scholar clearly uses the term "legend" to indicate how she was seen by her contemporaries Margaret, during the last years of her life in Paris (while she was still alive), having survived the wars of religion. However I don't want to create an edit war on this topic. I just wanted to add a news item to the article. However, I wrote about it in the article talk page. Regarding the rest, I admitted before I was wrong not to properly check Wellman's book before inserting the bibliographic note.

And it seems to me that you are trying to make this personal, comment on the content not on the editor

No. I have already admitted my mistakes several times, but it seems to me that you are responding by evading any kind of comment on the content of historical facts added to the article, which is what interests me. I asked you several times if the books, articles and website of the famous scholar were enough for you as a reliable source. You have evaded any reference to them in your answers. Did you read them? I don't think you did.

I will say this one more time since you do not seem to understand, I do not care what is added to the article, as long as it is referenced by reliable source(s).'

I agree with the discourse of the sources, but I am also interested in what is added. --Chevalier d'Éon (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• "I asked you several times if the books, articles and website of the famous scholar were enough for you as a reliable source."

Really? Where?

• "You have evaded any reference to them in your answers. Did you read them? I don't think you did."

If you have a point to make, I would suggest posting a quote to support whatever it is you are rambling about. As I said before, I have not edited the article since 30 June and you show up here and start ranting at me about all sorts of nonsense.

• "Have you read the translation I left in the talk of the article and the chronology of the legendary elements attached to the life of the queen made by Viennot?"

From what I read on the article talk page, your quotes do not appear to cover "living legend". I would suggest speaking to the editor that reverted you(which you have not done).

• "but it seems to me that you are responding by evading any kind of comment on the content of historical facts added to the article.."

Evading what? You posted two links, you made no comment concerning their reliability, nor until today(10:33, 21 July 2019) had you mentioned the article talk page. Maybe you should not edit English Wikipedia if you can not understand original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You might be interested in this SPI

[263] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Brill Online

Got access to Brill Online for a day.[264] If you need any entry/entries, please don't hesitate to let me know. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

An interesting read

Recently decided to reopen James R. Russell's Zoroastrianism in Armenia.[265] Other than it being an excellent work, I stumbled across some newer works dealing with the same matter, which I thought were pretty interesting as well. Some excerpts:

• "There are two very important exceptions to this general pattern of the spread of Zoroastrianism: It is certain that the Armenians and the Georgians (or Iberians) were Zoroastrians before they converted to Christianity. This is not an obvious fact to everyone; on the contrary, it has been (and continues to be) bitterly opposed, especially by Armenian and Georgian scholars, who prefer to think of the pre-Christian religions of the Armenians and Georgians as chiefly “local” or “indigenous” traditions, which accommodated some Iranian elements (Ananikian 1925). They are aided in this interpretation by the fact that the (Christian) Armenian and Georgian sources rarely, if at all, identify the religion of their ancestors before their conversion to Christianity as “Zoroastrianism.” These sources either prefer seemingly neutral terms (such as “the religion of our forefathers”) or polemical ones (“heathenism”), but do not label the reli-gion as “Iranian” or “Zoroastrian.” Where these terms occur, they refer to the religion of the Persians, chiefly of the Persians as enemies of the Christian Armenians. This fact in itself, while undeniable, is not compelling; on the contrary, it seems to be in harmony with the selfidentifications of most of the Iranians; the wide spread of the term “Zoroastrian” is of post-Sasanian date and even “Mazda-worshipping” is mainly used in limited (e.g., imperial and liturgical) contexts. Iranian Zoroastrians seem to have been identified after the Iranian land they came from (Persians, Parthians, Sogdians, etc.), with the Zoroastrian element of their identity selfunderstood."

• "Historically, the first trace of an Armenian polity is the inclusion of the satrapy of Armina in the Achaemenid Empire."

• "From the period of Alexander to the downfall and partition of the kingdom(s) of Armenia between Sasanian Persia and the Byzantine Empire, Armenia is usually presented as a battle-zone between the two superpowers of the ancient world (Iran in the East and Greeks and Romans in the West). While this is true politically, it is not a very promising perspective culturally, for Armenia and the Armenians clearly and unequivocally participated in Iranian culture."

• "Recently, intensive archaeological study of various sites in the eastern half of Georgia has strengthened the case for a very early inclusion of Iberia in the Iranian political and cultural realm (Knauss 2006), and, like the Armenian sources, Georgian historical sources present a variety of evidence for a long period of intimate interaction between Georgian and Iranian culture. In both cases, this interaction continued after the (early) conversion of the kingdoms to Christianity. The conversion of the Iberian king Mirian III (with his realm) is traditionally dated to the year 337 CE. Georgia too was ruled by families with an Iranian ancestry (Persian and Parthian), who participated in the Iranian dynastic network that dominated the eastern half of the ancient world from Alexander to the end of antiquity."

-- Albert de Jong (2015) "Armenian and Georgian Zoroastrianism" in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism; Michael Stausberg, Yuhan Sohrab-Dinshaw Vevaina; Anna Tessmann (ed). John Wiley And Sons Ltd. pp. 119-128[266]

- LouisAragon (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Well that makes sense, since we already know of the Battle of Avarayr. If I remember correctly, the Armenians were pretty much 50/50 Christian/Zoroastrian split. And that was in 451 AD. Hell, this:

• "From the time of the conquest of Assyria and Urartu by the Medes to the fall of the Sasanian Empire to the Muslim Arabs some thirteen centuries later, Armenian culture devel­oped under the religious, political and linguistic influence of various Iranian empires.

Will not be accepted without rancor.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Spot on. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Matteo I Visconti

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Matteo I Visconti you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lingzhi2 -- Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary comment re: Matteo I Visconti

I read your edit comment on this page, "LMAO, read the talk page and the 9 harv errors created by "someone's" editing".

It is a common courtesy, particularly for extensive edits, to include some text such as see talk page for explanation.

As it was, my watchlist did not pick up your comments because they were transcluded onto the talk page from Talk:Matteo I Visconti/GA1. I have added that latter page to my watchlist, but please be aware that interested editors may not have that on theirs, hence the need for some directional help in the edit summary.

Peaceray (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• "It is a common courtesy, particularly for extensive edits, to include some text such as see talk page for explanation."

Yes, your sincere concern for this article is clear when you categorically went through and made changes to the references with no explanation as to why.[267][268][269][270][271][272][273][274][275][276] Clearly the "rules" you apply to another editor do not apply to you. Got it.

Your ownership of this article is getting very tiresome. But please be aware, that I have reinstated the 9 Harv errors and many others of other kinds(per Lingzhi2), so your ownership of this article is intact. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I had thought that my inclusion of the template code that I was using in the edit summary was much more informative than "Expanding citation" or "Improving citation". However, now that I have your feedback I will preface my edit summary with something to that effect before posting what I can of the template code into the edit summary.

As a former university reference librarian & current IT worker, I am something of a stickler for as complete citations as possible. I recognize that we are both strong-willed editors who have differences about citations. I am not adverse to compromise & I do value consensus. Discuss your proposed changes on the talk page, & if the consensus is to make the change, then I will not object that.

I think that you have added a lot of value to this article & am hoping we will work together on other articles going forward.

Peaceray (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Matteo I Visconti

The article Matteo I Visconti you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Matteo I Visconti for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lingzhi2 -- Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have access to this source?

Hi. Can you review this?[277] 2nd sentence of his edit summary does not make any sense. Also this one [278] sounds odd/exaggerated too. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The "first" Iranian peoples edit appears to be removing original research based on someone's interpretation of pages 613-624, since the Mongols are not mentioned as being in Central Asia in the 13th century anywhere in The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 3, Issue 1, pages 613-624.

The "second" Iranian peoples edit using this as a source was Wikipedia:OR. There is a lot of insinuation, comparison, and contrasting, but nothing that outright states Iranian culture influenced Russian folk culture.

• "The Oriental element in Russian folklore was studied by several generations of Russian scholars. On the other hand, the problem of the reflection of Russian elements in the Oriental epos has not been as yet sufficiently elucidated. The purpose of the present study is to explore, in a preliminary way, the attitude of the old Persian epic poets toward the Russians. While the forms of the Persian epic songs and fairy tales are in many respects similar to those of the Russian folklore, the Persian epos assumed a more organized form than the Russian." --Russians in the Medieval Iranian Epos, N. A. Rast, The American Slavic and East European Review

Vol. 14, No. 2 (Apr., 1955), page 260-261.

I hope this helps, Wario-Man. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Very help, thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio

I realise you were trying to be helpful but copying all of a source into the wiki verbatim is still a copyright violation. Please be more careful. Cabayi (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Aghlabid sack of Rome

Hi, I tried to change the [Aghlabid] ‘sack of the Rome’. I haven’t seen this referred to as a ‘sack’, which would involved completely looting of a city. They didn’t make it past the Aurelian wall. ‘Partial sack’ is probably not good either, but why not keep it as ‘raid on Rome’? It is only called a raid even in the very same article it links to.

And on top of that the use of ‘the Rome’ is obviously faulty English. Harsimaja (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

So this other source used in the article on the actual attack actually discusses the term, and seems to agree with my understanding: http://ojs.tsv.fi/index.php/StOrE/article/viewFile/52272/16204

The use of the term ‘sack’ might be common and the book by Kreutz might use it, but it would be more accurate and less controversial to use the same term as in the other article: ‘raid’. The English still needs correcting either way.

And sure, there were far reaching consequences, but that isn’t what is in question.

I’ll change “sack of the Rome” to “raid on Rome”, based on this. Harsimaja (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Learn before you preach.

Fellow of the British Academy Sebastian Brock debunked your 'Nestorian' conspiracy theory in an academic journal: https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:1m2396 Ramsin93 (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

First, it is not my "Nestorian" conspiracy.

Second, your poorly explained edits to the infobox of Church of the East are POV editing since the Nestorian portion of the article is thoroughly sourced.[279]

Third, your accusation of vandalism is a personal attack and this coupled with your edit warring proves you are not here to build an encyclopedia. And your other childish comment that "Kansas Bear is vandalizing this page with his personal belief.." is nonsense, since you know nothing about me or my personal beliefs.

Fourth, I see no attempt on the Church of the East talk page to explain your edits. Only your childish personal attacks against those that restored referenced information.

Fifth, as such, you are banned from my talk page. Any continued posting by you will result in the notification of an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Tariq ibn Ziyad

Hey Kansas Bear, (you know me prev. as Aṭlas)

All modern reliable secondary sources agrees unanimously on his Berber origin! why the article gives weight to primary sources at the expense of modern sources. Some examples of this modern sources: Luis Molina in the EI2 dscribed him as a "Berber commander" and stated that :"According to the opinion most widely held among chroniclers, Tarik b. Ziyad was a Berber client of Musa b. Nusayr [q.v.].....", Hugh Kennedy stated in Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al-Andalus that: "They were then described as mawla (pl. mawali) of so and so (Tariq b. Ziyad, the Berber governor of Tangier and probably a man of conciderable importance in his own community, for example, is described as mawla of Musa b. Nusayr...", Allen Fromherz in The Making of the Maghrib: 600–1060 CE: "Tariq ibn Ziyad was one of these Berber converts.", etc. Sorry for hijacking your talk page, but this article needs some serious work. Regards -TheseusHeLl (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand. I am not a big fan of primary sources, especially when refuted by secondary sources(as in this case). To remove the Arab and Persian theories you will need consensus. As to just exactly how to frame your argument... will be the key. Let me know if I can be of any help. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What about a RFC ?-TheseusHeLl (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I took the bold way. Check out my edit. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Third Battle of Panipat

My edits are only the restoration of vandalized list of belligerents of Durrani Empire, and a more drawn elaboration of the role of Afghan prisoners revolting from within Maratha ranks, and basic formatting.

No edit was removed, only rephrased in proper order. 115.96.147.106 (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Also I have a new user account as well, will respond from that when my Action throttle is lifted.

I have responded on your talk page, outlining exactly what you removed(references, referenced information, a url link from a reference) and the unreliable source you restored. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Idea

"According to many scholars, it was the foremost colonial empire of the 16th and 17th centuries". What do you think? Barjimoa (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Works for me.--Kansas Bear (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Kansas Bear (talk). I have now officially made this proposal at the talk page if you are interested. Barjimoa (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I am not the one that needs convincing and I seriously doubt the impartiality of a certain editor. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Mursa Major

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Mursa Major you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Kudos

Saw your efforts on talk page of Mahmud of Ghazni. lots of work. Same for Sun Temple of Multan. My following edit has been reverted [280] and discussion has been closed now. nonetheless saw your hard work there. Kudos again. Saurabhbhardiya (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Mursa Major

The article Battle of Mursa Major you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Battle of Mursa Major for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sikh Pashtuns?

Hello Kansas Bear,

The 2 references that were there were saying: "Pashtun" Sikhs. Thats how you call them but they are not ethnic Pashtuns. See talk page and given references on that.

Casperti (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at this

What do you think about these removals and cn tags[281][282]? That article was poorly written, so his changes may be OK but if there are reliable stuff in those removed content, could you restore & rewrite them? --Wario-Man (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I could rewrite it with sources, but unfortunately I do not read Russian, so out of those sources that are written in Russian how much information would we lose? And, judging from Beshogur's editing they are not inclined to allow anything that does not say "Turkic/Turk/Turkish" into the article. Anything that does, will have references removed and citation tags placed on it, as your second link indicates. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think those Russian sources are something special. The issue is that several users/IPs tried to remove those info (typical nationalistic approaches). So if Ashina-Sogdian/Saka/Wusun/Iranian connection is supported in verifiable English sources, someone like you could end this endless dispute by (re)writing that section and improving the whole article. Even if Ashina-Sogdian/Saka/Wusun/Iranian connection is a fringe theory, the article is still poorly written. See this Talk:Ashina_tribe#This_whole_page_needs_serious_rewriting_by_an_accredited_expert_on_the_Early_Turks --Wario-Man (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I should have some time after 20 Dec to start work on it. I would like LouisAragon(or Ymblanter?) to take a look at those sources in Russian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

My sincerest thanks, Ealdgyth.--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry merry !

PrimeBOT (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Wikaviani. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)