User talk:Kansas Bear

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fire Star 火星 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue

Kansas Bear, has your issue been resolved? I was a bit confused about what the problem between you and HENRY V was. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering this individual has made these statements;

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

Refuted by these sources...

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.

Basicly now your unsourced statements are refuted

It shows your immiturity on this matter by msking up definitions

I do not see any reason to continue any dialogue with this person. Any and all statements I've "made" were referenced, his ignorance of the facts is not my problem. And my "msking up definitions", let this individual go to dictionary.com[1], 'cause.... DAMN! His statements are fallacious and amusing and considering he needs some sort of childish ego boost, his acuity is flawed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

)

Wikipedia: Harrassment

Wikipedia:Harassment.

Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Your Edit

Why did you erase the part of the sentence which read, "prolific state builders in Eurasia"? In your edit you said you'd like a reference for the "multi-ethnic conglomeration" but you nonetheless erased another portion of the sentence which is already known beyond a reasonable doubt and referenced by way of four seperate articles on Wikipedia. Indeed the Bulgars created at least four states. As I said, there are fully referenced Wikipedia articles about these four states founded and administered by the Bulgars, which are: (1)Volga Bulgaria (3) Great Bulgaria (2) First Bulgarian Empire (4) Second Bulgarian Empire. I placed internal links to these articles as references to "prolific state builders" which were then erased. If you do not believe that the Bulgars were prolific state builders than please erase those Wikipedia articles and see for yourself how people will respond to you then. You might as well then go on to disprove all academics on this topic as well. Since you will not be doing that I suggest you read those articles in order to better educate yourself about this topic. Please do not erase such well documented realities of history. Thank you for your time...--Monshuai (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding questionable information,""multi-ethnic conglomeration", without a reliable published[2] source WILL be removed. Your statement of "You might as well then go on to disprove all academics on this topic as well", doesn't impress me. Take your "grandstanding" elsewhere. Please don't be so egotistic as to think since you've added something that it's "such well documented realities of history". Especially when the anon IP(as you) was using websites for references!! I've yet to see any source stating "believed to be directly related to the Huns" and Grousset says nothing like that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts

My thoughts on this? If you read the hidden comments I have inserted, is your question necessary, dear Kansas Bear??? My thoughts are the same as yours. When I first read the quote you gave, I could not figure out much of anything:

1. the next relative: who is she? her daughter? her granddaughter? in which case she would not be named a *relative*;
2. Louise Diane (who becomes Louise in the next sentence): why mention that she was the favourite of Madame? unnecessary verbiage, and which *Madame*? because it spills over several generations & there was always one *Madame*;
3. I imagine that Louise (who must be Louise Diane) must have married the Prince of Conti since she died in childbirth after having been engaged to him seven words back in previous sentence; but is it even necessary to mention the castle in which she died?
4. Her only surviving child: whose only surviving child? That of Françoise Marie or of Louise Diane? I guess Louise Diane since the only surviving child was the last Prince of Conti, but then you have to stop & think in order to figure out the link between Maria Fortunata, Charlotte Aglaé & Françoise-Marie;

The whole thing is a terrible imbroglio of personages who do not need to be there as they are linked to their own articles. One would have to be an extremely good writer to write & make sense out of the family tree. That's why family trees are presented as such, not in writing.

What I fear is that our *Alexandre Dumas, junior* is going to give the same treatment to all related articles, i.e. the articles of these relatives, in which case he should write one cacophony article on the family tree of the Bourbon, Condé, Conti, Orléans... (have I forgotten a branch?)

I have come to the point of not wanting to change anything because it would take a whole month of rewriting - that's why I have opted for the hidden comments attitude.

I also left a comment at the beginning of the *Dowry* section (pasted below minus the pictures). Why have such a section in which only the first two sentences speak of the dowry, which should be mentioned in the marriage section: the dowry being a part of the *marriage deal*. And Saint-Simon's quote is totally out of place. It comes, as the French say, comme des cheveux sur la soupe (like hair on soup).

As for the Prince de Conti, there is a mix up between father & son, Louis François I de Bourbon, who had participated in the Seven Years War, died in 1776, hence could not have had any part in the Revolution of 1789 & Louis François II de Bourbon, who died in 1814 - but I have no idea what "great part" he played in the Revolution of 1789, except for being a suspect to the revolutionaries, arrested in 1793 & kicked out of France in 1797. Anyway, as you pointed out, the battles of Hastenbeck and Krefeld occurred more than thirty years before the Revolution of 1789, thus did not follow it.

We cannot let such inexactitudes creep in. The Françoise-Marie de Bourbon article is turning into a disaster. Those of the two Conti princes, which were not on my watchlist & I am wondering what's with them.

Please feel free to delete the *Dowry* section below as it is adding a lot to your talk page.

Cordialement, (I may not be able to reply for a couple of days.) Frania W. (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dowry

From her father, Françoise-Marie received a dowry of over two million livres, twice as much as her older sister, Louise-Françoise, had earlier received on her marriage to the Duke of Bourbon. This difference led to a great deal of animosity between the sisters.

As her new husband was a legitimate grandson of King Louis XIII of France, Françoise-Marie assumed the rank of petite-fille de France (granddaughter of France), and was addressed by the style of Her Royal Highness. Furthermore, the newlyweds traveled and lodged wherever the king did, dined with him, and were entitled to an armchair in his presence. As the new Duchess of Chartres, Françoise-Marie was next in precedence behind only the Duchess of Burgundy, and her own mother-in-law, the Duchess of Orléans.

Out of all her siblings, Françoise-Marie made the most prestigious marriage after that of her half-brother, the Dauphin of France, who married his cousin Duchess Maria Anna of Bavaria in 1680.

Another account of the Duchess was written by her husband's friend, the Duke of Saint-Simon, around 1710:

in every way majestic ; her complexion, her throat, her arms, were admirable; she had a tolerable mouth, with beautiful teeth, somewhat long; and cheeks too broad and too pendant, which interfered with, but did not spoil her beauty. What disfigured her the most were her eyebrows, which were, so to speak, peeled and red, with very little hair ; she had, however, fine eyelashes, with well-set, chestnut-coloured hair. Without being humpbacked or deformed, she had one side larger than the other, which caused her to walk awry; and this defect in her figure indicated another, which was more troublesome in society and which inconvenienced herself.

Her mother-in-law wrote the following in her memoirs:

all the femmes de chambre have made her believe that she did my son honour in marrying him; and she is so vain of her own birth and that of her brothers and sisters that she will not hear a word said against them; she will not see any difference between legitimate and illegitimate children

Minor edits

Hi Kansas Bear. I hope you don't perceive this as overly nit-picky, but I notice you seem to have the "mark all edits as minor" thing toggled on. Most of your edits fall outside the "minor" category, in my opinion... Would you mind changing it, or is there a philosophy behind your choice here? I'm not trying to hassle you; just curious. Best regards, Kafka Liz (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Tell Aramgar, I said "Hi!". --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do. I'm sure he won't mind if I say back atcha on his behalf. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

About Seljuk Empire

My friend, Great Seljuk Empire was an Turkish empire. Why are insisting that it was an Turko-Persin empire? Can you show me a source where it states Turko-Persian? I can show you hundreds where it is correctly stated Turkish. Please stop referencing from Encyclopedia Iranica, which is a biased source. Yes, it is clear that to some degree the Seljuks adopted the Persian language and cultre, but that doesn't make them Persian or Persianate or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkadirbeyoglu (talk • contribs) 17:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read ALL the references listed. Grousset, et al., all state it was Turko-Persian. Continued removals of said references will result in the notification of Admins, mein freund! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I read many sources, in Turkish, English, German... All state the the empire was Turkish, of Turkic origin. Nobody says that they did not adopt Persian language and culture but that doesn't make the empire Turco-Persian. Even your source Grousset states Turkic, what about that? I addded two anoter references, why don't you look at them? I will not stop editing the article until either we will come to a conclusion together. In additon, so-called persianization is stated later in the article, mein Freund! Bkadirbeyoglu (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I read many sources..... http://books.google.com/books?q=Seljuk+turko-persian --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Turko-Persian tradition, culture is something different than the origin. You can also type Seljuk Turkish and find out much more references. The Seljuks are referenced also as Seljuk Turks. Seljuk Empire was an Turkish empire that adopted Persian language to some degree. History Channel states the empire as Turkish. Again, I am against the first sentence that over-emphasizes the Persian role and tradition.