Jump to content

User talk:Kansas Bear

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yozer1 (talk | contribs) at 18:24, 3 April 2015 (→‎Issues with Reality: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

JSTOR This user has access to JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library




a notification

I have reported Qara xan to an administrator on his talk page. I herd you are aware of the issue between HistoryofIran and Qara xan I am helping HistoryofIran and trying to solve the issue. If you want to look at the report see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Materialscientist# remember the report is at the bottom of his page. Thanks! Ranabhai (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the next accusation of Anti-Turk/racism

[1]/[2] -- "that source doesn't seem to be very on-topic..."
more nonsense

Happy New Year!

Dear Kansas Bear,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thanks A Lot

Respected sir, Thank you for your kind advice. I think its the best option.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajani Abbasali (talk • contribs) 08:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sal·la, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cordoba. 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) 09:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadilis

hi can you look on page ahmadilis a guy has added a reference from Iranian wikipedia and the author is not a historian, I did the same. The rulers have Turkish names!Turkic_ Warrior 13:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Kenneth A. Luther was a historian.[3] Have you taken this to the talk page and started a discussion? The talk page would be an excellent place to present all the sources and find a consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read, well done kansas bear.thank you for taking your time to solve it  :) Turkic_ Warrior 21:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmeett21 (talk • contribs)

Not a problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you somethink.

Why did you delete what I wrote? I ask you something. This is theory consists, then Why Xiongnu is in History of the Mongolic peoples template? 31.200.10.66 (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you something, why come to my talk page and make outrageous claims without any academic sources to back you up? Did I create History of the Mongolic peoples? Then I would suggest you talk to the creator of that article. You want to place Huns, Xiongnu, et. al. in your Turkic people template, start a discussion, bring your source(s) and gain a consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But sources are available in templates. 31.200.10.66 (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, now you are ignoring what I told you and blatantly ignoring the sources in the Hun, Xiongnu and Hephthalite Empire. Clearly you are not a "new" user, and since you are using an IP address, you are most likely a blocked editor back pushing the same POV that has been tried over and over and over and over again. When reading the Huns article, I find no mention of Turkic anything. If you are going to try the Hunnic language as a means to push your POV, note there are 6 sourced origins, none being given undue weight. The Xiongnu connection is addressed in the lead and has a source stating no connection. With the Xiongnu article, I see 6 sourced origins, none being given undue weight. The Hephthalite Empire article states 2 origins both with sources. I believe this clearly explains undue weight, clearly shows that Turkic is not a prevailing academic consensus and we are done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enough rope?

O.Turani is being discussed.[4] Edward321 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this discussion at WP:AN3. Since you are someone who has worked on this part of the world, can you provide any background? It's my guess that the person reported is most likely a sock, but it's hard to quickly understand this without knowing about the content issues. It seems that you clashed with Turan22 here. There are possibly-related SPIs at:
There was an AN3 about someone named User:Turan22 here. Turan22 was trying to make a possibly-Persian famous astronomer, Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Kathīr al-Farghānī into an Uzbek.
Is someone trying to promote the significance of Uzbeks in past historical events? Were the Timurids actually Uzbeks? Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If some people are trying to push a Uzbek POV into articles they are doing it in the wrong way. As for O.Turani being a sock, at this point it's rather moot, his continued edit warring, lack of competence in English and intent to push his POV, should result in his permanent ban.
This area is on the fringe of where I research/study, however IF the Timurids are Uzbek, where are the sources for this? I found this, which mentions Timurds and Uzbeks as two separate groups. This source presents the Uzbeks and Timurids as opponents.
Here is something interesting, Rehabilitating Timur: This could only be achieved by regarding the actual Uzbek impact on Central Asia as unimportant and the attachment of the Uzbek name to a significant portion of it as incidental. Accomplishing this revision involved posthumously renaming the contemporary rivals and opponents of the Uzbeks--the Timurids--as Uzbeks. That directive required the cultural ideologists for Central Asia to accept the famed conqueror Amir Timur and his attainments as positive feature in Uzbek historiography. That rehabilitation of Amir Timur and the Timurids helped the revisionists de-emphasize the accomplishments and genealogy of the sixteenth-century Shaybanids and the closely related seventeenth-century Ashtarkhanids." --Edward Allworth, The Modern Uzbeks: From the Fourteenth Century to the Present, page 242. This also reinforces what Allworth states. I believe that gives us an answer. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O'Turani's been blocked less than 12 hours and the first sock appears.[5] Already reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/O.Turani Edward321 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi

kansas bear can you help me on the page naimans they are turkic but some say vandal when i edit,Mehmeett21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmeett21 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of references

Hi. You've recently removed references to Farrokh's book on the Muslim conquest of Persia page. Setting aside discussion on whether the source is credible or not, let me note that removing references without removing the referenced material is very much against the spirit and letter of Wikipedia principles. Let me explain: what happens in this case, is a de-facto creation of unsourced material (the material is still there, but now it looks like it's unreferenced). So you should either remove references and the referenced material or just leave things be and raise the issue on the appropriate Talk page. The latter is probably a better course of action in this particular case, since there's quite a lot of material on this page referenced from Farrokh. cherkash (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that as a viable reason to leave a clearly unreliable source in an article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it's the reason to keep the reference to an allegedly unreliable source – I said it's a reason to remove all the unreliable material which is referenced from the unreliable source (if the source, and more importantly, the information itself, is considered unreliable). Don't break the material–reference link. It's not a reference that's unreliable, it's the referenced information itself. So decision to keep or remove should be made about the article material and not simply the referencing citation. So it's together that they either stay or go. cherkash (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A major problem

This guy Qara xan is getting on my nerves now. I am trying to expand this article [6], but he simply reverts me [7]. If i try to discuss with him, he will most likely ignore me and if i revert the edit, he will revert it back and keep ignoring me. What would you do if you were in my place? If you have time and the will, i would really much appreciate some help here, because this is becoming problematic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Start a discussion, addressing whatever his concerns are with your edits. That is what I would do. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This guy just won't stop. And thinks that Britannica is reliable. Kansas Bear, could you do me and favor and help me make this guy stop? now his next target is Ahmad Sanjar [8] and i have tried to discuss with him but it is hopeless [9]. I can't expand articles when this guy reverts my edits every time and no one bats an eye. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously arguing over whether Ahmad Sanjar was the longest reigning Muslim ruler? I'm not sure I would worry about something like that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he get what he wants it will only get worse. A good example is this article [10], where I after some time said to myself "never mind, it isn't worth it". But now it has only got worse. He needs to learn that he can't do these things, because he is beginning to target the articles i edit. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:HistoryofIran, you can always try the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malik-Shah I and Sanjar

Hi, Kansas Bear. Can you share your thought about these discussions Talk:Malik-Shah I and Talk:Ahmad Sanjar because HistoryofIran don't agree with me and also i don't agree with him :). --Qara khan 23:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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. The discussion is about the topic Pope Joan. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page or discussion[reply]

Hello, Mr. Bear. Just to let you know that you have been included as a party in the following dispute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Pope_Joan You're welcome :) 177.76.41.164 (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Horde

An edit war has broken out on the list of Turkic dynasties and countries article over whether the Golden Horde should be included. I think that the listing is strongly supported by the evidence, and is within the scope of the list, but I do think that it is in the wrong section. I've started a section thread on the talk. Since you have been active on the page before, I thought you might be able to help move this edit war toward constructive consensus building.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


need some help

Hello! Kansas Bear I need some help, could you give me a list of rules of this Wikipedia so I don't get blocked or make a mistake. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranabhai (talk • contribs) 13:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More1001

Hello, Kansas Bear. I'm not quite sure would you be interested to help with this, but knowing that you're interested in history of Central Asia, India, etc I thought you'd want to take a look into this. Editor More1001 appears to be, for some time, engaging in removing of referenced, stable content and adding unreferenced data to the articles about Afghan history, as well as to other articles on Wikipedia (as his user contribution shows - [11]). I informed him it would be really appreciated if he stop with such behavior, but I don't know whether he'll listen to that. Any help from you would be really appreciated, and if you like you can inform other users interested in Afghan (or Central Asian and Indian) history about this. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xiongnu

I see we have a common friend. Perhaps you'd like to join a discussion of him here. (He blanks his talk page to hide notices etc.) Regards, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banned EMr_KnG (sock master) returned to WP

His new accounts:

Compare with old account:

same edits, same behavior. Just watch targeted articles. --188.158.96.246 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prithviraj Chauhan

Nicely put. The if any, in particular ;) - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would throw that in before that particular editor appears on the talk page and starts an unsourced rant. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Qutb Shah

Dear sir, hello, I am an occasional editor here at Wikipedia and am rather concerned about consistent problems with the Qutb Shah article, which I see you have also worked on? I have left my comments and remarks time and again on thios articles Talk Page but to no avail-- some person or persons are trying to add fake and spurious information to an article about another 'Qutab Shah' altogether, and trying to claim this Sufi as that other person. A list of non existent and fake 'books' are also being claimed as 'sources'. Sadly, it all seems an exercise to somehow elevate one's self or one's tribe/clan/family, blatant self-promotion. Im not sure what to do now, I keep on fixing and refixing this article again and again, but i feel some serious check is required please by senior and impartial editors at Wikipedia. I would be grateful for your help in this regard, thanks. I would request that you please at least look at the history of this article and what it has become and also at the Talk comments. Many thanks, 39.54.243.123 (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Col (r) Malik Mumtaz Khan, Pakistan[reply]

I have responded on the Qutb Shah talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Krakkos (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False edit summary

Hi. Can you check this edit? He removed 2 sources and marked his edit as minor. Also, his edit summary is not clear. Plus, I guess he did same removals on some other articles. It looks like he removes what he does not like, and writes disruptive edit summaries. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prima facie, it appears he removed a repeated reference. Also, Percy Sykes should not be used as an historical source, Sykes was not an historian. Therefore, I am removing the Sykes "source". --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zyma, I just saw you talk about me. Sorry, but I don't delete what I don't like. Check my edits once again please before you write libellous comments aboout me. (P.S. I'll not keep to discuss on Kansas Bear's talk page.) @Kansas Bear, I left a comment here, I hope you can check it.Cheers!--Gomada (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have responded. Clearing up someone's gigantic error in linking to the wrong David Yerushalmi, which I removed. I have also left links on the talk page clearly showing that the historian David Yerushalmi, of the Tel Aviv University, is the author of The Jews of Iran in The Nineteenth Century: Aspects of History, Community, and Culture. Enjoy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I don't see any issues. --Zyma (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing on Nader Shahs invasion article

Hello Kansas Bear,

You had reverted this disruptive edit back from a certain editor (Aradhyasharma), but he has put his same disruptive addition back again.[[12]] This is the third time right now he's putting that stuff back. I'm reporting this here so that you can take the according measures needed here.

Regards and thanks!

84.241.194.47 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seljukide article

hello, I didn't understand why you have undone my modifications to this article. I would like to talk with you over my corrections, but please change only modifications if there is a strong reason and discussed somewhere.

I understand that there is a confusion about the terms Iran and Persia. That's why I change it whenever it is necessary.

Terms Iran and Persia have actually the same meaning, even though they may have different historical weights. Iran is the name of this land for his people for at least 1800 years, after Sassanian empire (II° century CE). It refers all the time to a political "state". This state has been conquered many times and changed geographically but politically it remained a defined entity. Persia is an Hellenistic word originated by the use of ancient Greeks for this land and could be referred to ancient Iran (500BC-200 CE). Western historians used this word to refer to this country but this is exactly as you use Germany instead of Deutschland or Egypt instead of Misr. The problem is that since the beginning of 20th century, the same western historians use the term Iran for the same continuous political entity (of course forced by Iranian government at 1935!). When we use Persia, it is seemed that we are talking about a country disappeared, an ancient civilization or something like that. There were many "new" countries in Asia after the World War I. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, ... are examples of these countries even though the land and the people existed before. But this does not concern Iran, as the change of the name was purely for foreign diplomatic use! There is of course a Persian language and not an Iranian language! We can accept also referring to "Persian" culture as something over passing the country of Iran, but not for a dynasty, as it governs a land and not a culture!

Concerning Seljukides, they started to govern this "entity" of Iran. After the death of Malik Shah I, a branch continued in Anatolia and became "Seljukides of Rum" and so separated from Iranian history which refers to the same political land. (Ehsan01 (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, your change is POV and linking it is grossly anachronistic, since the Islamic Republic of Iran did not exist in 1037! No amount of analogies, rationalizations, or opinions will change that. That is why Persia was used, thus not to be confused with the [Iran|modern state of Iran]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We talk about Iran and not Islamic Republi! This is a form of government. For example Republic of France is the same as Imperial France after the revolution or French Monarchy before 1789! In 1037 there is an entity which HIS PEOPLE call Iran. The same people call their country Iran today. We can not say the same for Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE, Canada, USA, Russia. But Iran exists in 1037! Maybe invaded, maybe divided but the entity is there. Westerns call it Persia in 1037 and Iran today. How can an English reader understand that we talk about the same country? Is there any date of independence of Iran?! Ehsan01 (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take your comments to the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ip address, possible sockpuppet threatening to edit war

I'm being threatened with an edit war by a person who is apparently using proxy ips or meatpuppets. First he uses ip address 216.185.114.219, then account TodHirilla, and then 142.255.6.214, the ip addresses are in different areas and ranges but they are pushing exactly the same points and doing the exact same agenda, apparently varying their language on purpose with the different ip ranges (ip 216.185.114.219 and TodHirilla deliberately misspell "Qing" as Qin, while ip 142.255.6.214 spells it normally). So apparently TodHirilla knows that if his ip address is checked by checkuser, 216.185.114.219 and TodHirilla will match up while 142.255.6.214 is either him using a proxy ip or a meatpupppet friend whom he is communicating with.

Uniquark9 has communicated in Mongolian with other users who operated sockpuppets before and tried to enlist their help in his edit wars, there is definitely some meat or sock puppetry with proxy ips going on here.

Both Uniquark9 and AncientSteppe are involved in this somehow. Many sockpuppets and banned meatpuppet collaborators like Uniquark9, AncientSteppe's sockpuppets Khorichar, Khiruge, and MuhammedIn have edited that page, and nearly all of them removed the same material that I added that TodHirilla did (except the Khorichar sockpuppet who edited the article before me)

I provided solid sources by qualified historians in Mongol and Asian History like Uradyn E. Bulag and Pamela Kyle Crossley, while the TodHirilla and ip is claiming that their claims are "fringe" and constantly deleting the content.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alicewond/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uniquark9/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ancientsteppe

Not sure where and how to file this case, in edit warring, sockpuppet or meatpuppetry?Rajmaan (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly both. Just because TodHirilla and the IPs have been investigated as socks of Ancientsteppe, doesn't mean they aren't sockpuppets of another banned editor! --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you introduce sanctions or page protection on Oirats? The ip is basically carrying out his edit war threat, and hasn't provided any real reasons to delete the sourced content.Rajmaan (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas Bear, Please look at the discussion page. I provided many reasons to delete his fringe theory. Evecurid and few users think his idea is a fringe theory. Rajmaan just doesn't listen and keep just pushing his fringe theory and no one supported him. I am calling more users and admins on this case.142.255.6.214 (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what he said.Rajmaan (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani nationalistic PoV pushing

As of two days ago, there's an Azerbaijani user (user "interfase") who's trying to push the well known "Azerbaijanj über alles" pov disruptive edits on the Russo-Persian War (1804-1813) and the Battle of Ganja (1804) pages. As of yesterday, he's trying to give the territories of Qajar Persia an "nationalistic and separate character" separately from the Persian empire which they were part of (at least during that time), which is a typical thing for irredentist Azerbaijani nationalist. Note how he's added separate flags for the Khanates on both pages on the info boxes, and removed the flags of the Persian empire, despite the territories being a full part of Qajar Persia during the time, and especially during the war which the articles are about. The Qajar Persia flags were displayed on the infoboxes for a very long time, before his disruption on both articles. The Qajar maps and other Wikimedia maps show the terrories as being part of the Qajar empire, not some separate "affiliated" Azeri state, which bogus nationalistic pov he's trying to push here.

Note that he's been warned multiple times, had/has a topic ban notification related to articles around the same region, and was blocked several times for edit warring, amongst other things. He's been doing the same thing on the exact same articles on the Russian Wikipedia, so he's cross-wiki PoV pushing as well.

Please prevent this nationalistic disruption on these history related articles which he's been doing, and please restore the articles to how they used to be.

84.241.192.72 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Why have you not started a discussion on the talk pages of the respective articles? Whether someone is Azerbaijani, Armenian, Iranian, Turkish, Kurdish, etc, is not important to me. Whether an editor is disruptive or unbalancing an article's POV is important. As of right now I have not seen anything that suggests Interfase has done either. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that when someone wants to make a rather significant change it's him/her that needs to bring the reasons and sources for change to the respective talk pages ? In any case, adding a different flag to the Ganja Khanate means/implies that they were independant/not part of the empire, which is not much more than nationalistic pov pushing. Not only is this bogus per the maps on the Qajar empire page and all the cartographic files on behalf of the Qajar empire, but it also erranously "implies" that the Qajar empire didn't rule any territory to the North of the Aras river, which is perhaps the most funny point, as Persia's most famous connection with te river is that it was forced to cede all it's belongings to the North of te river (comprising Armenia, Georgia, Dagestan, Azerbaijan]], per the Treaty of Gulistan which itself was a result of the 1804-1813 war he's pov pushing on?....
So, the regions they were forced to cede were actualy not a part of their belongings per his bogus edit. Makes sense, eh?!....
Basically he's trying to give an ethnic Azeri identity (that did not even exist during that time) to that what was a part of the Empire, as if it was a separate state only randomly "allied" with Persia during the war and therefore removing territories from the empire which they actually did rule all the way up to Southern Dagestan. See for the map of the behalf of the Qajar empire to see it's territories.
He's been doing the exact same thing on the English as well as the Russian Wikipedia without any consensus, any mention on a talk page, or any good reason given in his/her edit summaries on both Wikipedia's. A person doing that with a history of irredentist nationalistic editing and discretionary topics actions, isn't that something one should take some action against?
In any case I just wanted to let you know and ask about it. If you don't think there's anything that need to be done, then I guess you're right. In any case, historically it's wrong, and it's purely nationalistic fed irredentional bogus as I know/understand where he's coming from looking at his edits, but ok.
84.241.198.246 (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not start a discussion on the articles' talk pages and notify Interfase of said discussion(s)? As for Russian Wikipedia, I can not help you since I do not read Russian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

sir these are the sources. In which it is clearly stated that Mughals were defeated and retreated in the second battle of Anandpur

Johar, Surinder Singh (1998). Holy Sikh shrines. New Delhi: M D Publications. p. 46. ISBN 978-81-7533-073-3. OCLC 44703461. 3. Singh, Bhagat Lakshman (1995). Short Sketch of the Life and Work of Guru Govind Singh, The Tenth and Last Guru. Laurier Books Ltd. /AES. p. 96. ISBN 978-81-206-0576-3. OCLC 55854929. 4. Singh, Prithi Pal (2007). The History of Sikh Gurus. Lotus Books. p. 146. ISBN 978-81-8382-075-2. 5. Singh, Dalip (1992). Guru Gobind Singh and Khalsa Discipline. Amritsar: Singh Bros. p. 256. ISBN 978-81-7205-071-9. OCLC 28583123. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak107839 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you post these "sources" and cooresponding quotes on the articles' talk pages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been blocked for spanning user pages with lists of sources/long articles, so feel free to remove this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Vandalisms are not Edit Wars

If one is not retard enough, he can easily understand reverting Vandalisms of an upstart named "Xtremedood" are not Edit Wars. It will be better for you to understand the situation or to keep your nose out.Ghatus (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling another editor's edits "vandalism" is considered a personal attack. Calling another editor a "retard" is a personal attack. Deleting referenced information is disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this reliable?

Hi. Please review and verify this diff. Also, write your opinion about it. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The author looks to be an academic and appears as a source in other scholarly works. However, the book in question is not completely viewable on google books and therefore can not be verified. Best case, ask the editor to provide a quote from the book. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main content of book is accessible on Google Books. He linked to a bibliography page (page 121). Also, I've searched the keywords, and there is nothing similar to his dubious claim on that book. To me, his edits are just personal and blog-like materials. He added false info on another article too. His very own personal stuffs. --Zyma (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kara-Khanid Khanate

Hello, Kansas Bear. You have new messages at Qara xan's talk page.
Message added 22:42, 02 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Qara Khan 22:42, 02 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Reality

Hello Bear, I suggest you take your Armenian tendencies elsewhere, like to another site. -Yozer1 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kansas_Bear&oldid=654810198"