User talk:Kansas Bear

For the next accusation of Anti-Turk/racism

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

Malediction

• you are paid by ASALA and PKK..
• you glorify terrorist organizations...
• Kansas Bear has blocked many people who defend Turkish folk, instruments and culture
• you have a problem with all Turkish people.
• Kansas Bear hates Turks and can not admit it!
• you are not an American and you work for "racist" governments.
• Kansas Bear is not turkish or persian but a loser retard from hitlers youth trying to change turkish and iranian history on wikipedia.
• Kansas Bear is a Liar. And is trying to change and steal turkish history and culture.
• You are indeed a religious fanatic bigot ! They don't need any reference !
• Accused of Turkophobia.]
• Obviously, you and agreeing users with you want to make wikipedia battleground and a site for spreading ethnic hatred.
• Iranian nationalist POV pushers

Talkback

Hello, Kansas Bear. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 06:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating 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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi Kansas Bear, please read my explanation on Talk page of Seljuq dynasty before reverting it. The debate is on. BozokluAdam (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the multitude of references on the talk page, which you've ignored, before removing referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you back

Welcome back Kansas. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. K! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very pleased, we are losing good editors too fast! Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Doug. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

al-Farabi

Kansas Good day !

Why are you reverting my editions on the page of Great Islamic Scholar al-Farabi without noticing or explaining your reasons for that?

I hope you will be more responsible, aware and conscious about anything you change on the pages of wikipedia the next time

i hope you understand, thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Majilis (talk • contribs) 16:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You should be more responsible and not remove referenced information. Ignoring the sources that say he is Persian will get you no where. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

this is exactly what you're doing i didn't remove any reference if trace it back i only added some references

and you removed the references of Richard Walzer that i have put it there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.250.13 (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And you removed Persian(which is referenced). Without explanation or consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at al-Farabi. Your revertinghave been removed.

--Majilis (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:Majilis has already been blocked once for edit warring on the Al-Farabi article, and he is in peril of being blocked again. Accordingly, this administrator takes the warning above with a large grain of salt. —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to al-Farabi. --Majilis (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

OTTOMAN TITLE

http://web.archive.org/web/20020418161219/http://www.4dw.net/royalark/Turkey/turkey.htm

LOOK

Dilek2 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Tirmidhi

Tirmidhi is an Uzbek 'Alim he was born in Uzbekistan and passed away in Uzbekistan under the the Abbasid Caliphate, the territory is Uzbekistan, the rules were Abbasid Caliphates do you get it or not?

--Majilis (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a published university source stating he was Persian. Do you get it or not? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Odd how a "new user" is so proficient in knowing what 3rr is and where to find the warning templates.... Not to mention how this "new user's" edit of Ghaznavids mirror a previous anti-Persianate editor. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is anti-Persianate editor? Don't worry about me, you violated the 3RR and you've been here since 2008 so ask yourself why you did that?--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed changes made without consensus. Or did you not "read" that part? I'm sure you know ALL about consensus, since you are a "supposed" new user. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits

Hello Kansas Bear. Please see WP:AN3#User:Kansas Bear reported by User:Nasir Ghobar (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Ed. After reading what Nasir Ghobar has said, "....but Kansas Bear who I suspect is an Iranian...", "Everyone in Afghanistan are complaining that Iranians are on a crusade to steal Afghanistan's history.". I have absolutely no desire to respond to such racist comments. If Wikipedia has become a haven for such individuals to spew their racist rhetoric, then perhaps I should re-assess my recent return. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Peshawar

I'm pleased to be able to do a little bit for the article, although there is one point that I am curious about - you wrote that it is the first major battle between the Turkic Ghaznavid dynasty and the Shahi kingdom, but according to al-Utbi's Tarikh Yamini, they had two previous confrontations, one of them a major one near or in Lamghan (or maybe Kabul) involving over 100,000 troops. Those two battles were between Jayapala and Sebuk Tigin, although the first major between Jayapala and Mahmud appears to be Peshawar. Is that a direct quote from your source? I don't have access to that book (The State At War In South Asia) so I can't check. Hzh (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I will check it. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine

Hi there, well thanks for contacting me about this paragraph which another Wiki editor keeps reverting although I clearly mention the source which is the French edition of the Letters. The corresponding English editions generally leave out the "shameful" circumstances of Berry's death. The Palatine wrote extensively and her writing often went against the grain of "decent" court literature which is why it's so interesting and "true" Here's the entire reverted paragraph : On 21 July 1719, Elisabeth Charlotte lost her grand-daughter Marie Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans, Duchess of Berry. Notoriously promiscuous, the young widowed princess had hidden several pregnancies and the autopsy revealed her to be again with child, only three months after suffering a very laborious delivery. Elisabeth Charlotte was infinitely pained by Berry's death and horrified by what she learned of her debauchery.

The other editor keeps reverting it claiming it has nothing to do with Elizabeth Charlotte's biography on Wiki. If he'd read Elizabeth Charlotte's letters he'd realize that the aged princess was very much affected by the scandals surrounding the death of her grand-daughter the Duchess of Berry. I wanted to keep the paragraph short but true to the facts (since indeed this article is dedicated to the Palatine and not to Berry) which is why I only mention this single source. The scandalous death of the Duchess is described at length by Saint-Simon and others, but anyone interested in this specific will find all that info on the Wiki piece dedicated to the Duchess of Berry... Regards. Aerecinski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.243.130.188 (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Hi again Kansas Bear, well sorry I had forgotten to re-login when writing you the preceding edit about the Palatine and since I moved too fast saving the page... Sorry about that and all the Best. Aerecinski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

saliha sultana

I delete it, dont worry, you are the winner

i see too many racists here in english category

Dilek2 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Race has nothing to do with it. As I said earlier, there are most likely thousands of descendants of Ottoman royalty that have not been written about in English or any other language for that matter. If I were you, I would take the article Saliha Sultana and create your own sandbox like user:Dilek2/Saliha Sultana. Then continue to search for published sources to support this article. Once your article is well sourced, then re-admit it to mainstream wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. When you recently edited Genocide Memorial Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National holiday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ghaznavids

Regarding User talk:EdJohnston#Dispute at Ghaznavids. This is probably going to be archived from my talk page with no further action. I hope that the situation is under control for the moment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what action could have been taken, Ed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ozdemura

Are you sure Pliny the Elder wasn't a 19th century writer? Agenda anyone? At least this editor is now using edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, I was going out on a limb there. :-p --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

That was unexpected, but thank you. Much appreciated. Hzh (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kansas Bear. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 05:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Ankara

I was already writing my comment when you sent me your message. There was no reason to mention "personal animosity" of other user because it is violation of Wikipedia:Civility which says: Don't ....make personal remarks about editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Understood. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. I especially enjoyed the remark, "Neither of you are historians nor you have any academic attitude.", LMAO!!! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I gave a fairly clear arguments which support adding Lazarevic to the infobox and I don't really have much to add to that now. If IP user misinterpreted the sources, then it is only an additional reason to prevent him/her to continue with disruption.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I believe the IP has some sort of political/nationalistic POV which calls for the removal of Stefan Lazarevic from the infobox. Thus removing Lazarevic's responsibility in providing troops for Bayezid. What I find very odd, is this IP's issue with this particular battle. Why not the Battle of Rovine? Battle of Nicopolis? Both have him listed in the infobox. --Defensor Ursa 06:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Great Seljuq Empire

Since you have been editing the Great Seljuq Empire article, I thought I would ask your opinion. Currently the lede sentence is, "The Great Seljuq Empire (Persian: دولت سلجوقیان‎, Modern Turkish: Büyük Selçuklu Devleti) was a medieval Persianate,Turko-Persian Sunni Muslim empire, originating from the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks.
What do you think of the lede sentence being this, "The Great Seljuq Empire (Persian: دولت سلجوقیان‎, Modern Turkish: Büyük Selçuklu Devleti) was a medieval Sunni Muslim Persianate empire, originating from the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks."??
Since in the following paragraph, Turko-Persian is mentioned. Your thoughts? --Defensor Ursa 20:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dear Kansas Bear. Before I apologize for my late reply. I think it is more correct the following sentence, "The Great Seljuq Empire" (Persian: دولت سلجوقیان‎) was a medieval Persianate, Muslim Turkic empire, originating from the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks. --Qara Khan 17:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

User:71.178.108.23

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Zunbils

Is this you? I asked this because out of the blue came this vandal under the anonymous IP from the state of Kansas blindly reverting my edits. Your user page stated that you are from Kansas and I saw that you used various IPs from Kansas to edit your user page. I believe it's not you but just wanted to make sure. I believe that person is User:Dewan357.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I noticed that user(the anon IP), and his/her editing habits, a some time ago. When I edit I usually add references. I added the citation to Buddhist since I could not find anything regarding the Zunbils. I am unaware of this User:Dewan357. --Defensor Ursa 05:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

According to this archive of sockpuppet investigations,[3] Dewan357 is located in New Jersey. --Defensor Ursa 05:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not user:Khestwol, either. --Defensor Ursa 06:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, according to User:John Hill on the talk page of Kushan Empire Dewan357 is a New Jersery/New York City area editor involved in turning things that are not Hindu into Hindu. And user:Khestwol is from Peshawar, Pakistan, based on my reviews. He usually adds that Peshawar was the 2nd capital of past empires without citing anything to back his opinion.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. When you recently edited Abbey of Saint-Arnould, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles V (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nasir Ghobar

I have reported this obvious sockpuppet of User:Lagoo sab. Maybe you want to say something about it. [4] --Lysozym (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Something suspicious about the Durrani Empire article

Hello Kansas Bear, I think there is something suspicious going on in the Durrani Empire page. I would like to have your opinion on it.Qatarihistorian (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for your discussion on Ardashir I.. I have brought the Iranica article which describes the three major theories. Thank you--96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Though I do not believe I helped much, but you are welcome. --Defensor Ursa 04:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah your presence in Wikipedia has always been helpful in fighting vandalism and crapy nationalism (e.g. Abdul Qadir Maraghi which I just r.v.'ed..).--96.255.251.165 (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you add Nasir al-Din Tusi and Biruni to your watchlist.. it seems these are amongst the many other articles that gets constantly vandalized. Thank you--96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

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 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Saffarids

Why are you removing sources that disagree with your opinion/theory/belief?--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you removing sources that disagree with your opinion/theory/belief?? Why are you ignoring what the sources on the talk page state? --Defensor Ursa 14:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Go to the talk page and read what I wrote.[5]--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You go to the talk page and read the sources that state Persian. --Defensor Ursa 15:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Friend, Thanks for standing your ground on various articles that gets constantly vandalized with POV. I just another vandal on Biruni.. Please stay firm and don't let them get you frustrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.251.165 (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Verification

Can you verify the last edits/reverts for these articles? Ergenekon and Battle of Marv. The edits are 1, 2, and 3. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For the Battle of Marv, that is correct. The Safavids were technically Turk not Persian. As for Ergenekon, I noticed a referenced sentence that has been removed. You might check the source on that sentence and go from there. --Defensor Ursa 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ranjit Singh

I think the discussion is nothing but WP:LAWYER on the part of Nasir. See my comment .Thanks SH 14:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being wrong.

I didn't realize the Saffarids were Persians. I thought they were other Iranian but not Persian. I am truly sorry, I'm ashamed of getting the info wrong. I just read the talk page and I can't believe Nasir Ghobar is going around claiming they were Arabs.

Wikipedia depresses me. I went through many days and weeks cleaning up articles related to Iranian, Uzbek, Arab and Afghan history, all of which were repeatedly vandalized to include false information by users with their own nationalistic agendas (be they Arab nationalists, Turkish nationalists, you name it). Not to mention repeatedly correcting information of various Arab tribes, which kept getting vandalized by Arabs from rivaling tribes, in order to include false history of a particular tribe that they hate, etc. And it keeps getting reverted over and over and over. I give up. Wikipedia is not a good tool for truth. I'm so ashamed for getting the info on the Saffarids wrong. :( Qatarihistorian (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Qatari, I dont believe that you should be ashamed. Please gather what ever sources you have and post them on the talk page. This should be approached from the stand point of investigation not anyone's personal opinion. I research every article this way and I do not start out with any previously conceived POV. I find this perspective more capable of seeing all possibilities. So please post any sources you may have and let us investigate the Saffarids like historians searching for answers. Wikipedia is as much a teaching tool as it is a learning environment. --Defensor Ursa 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Saffarids

Hi, Thanks for your input..I am very busy but I will get the help of two admins (Doug Weller and Folantin) who have been helpful on the issue. Thanks--96.255.251.165 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added 3 more sources that state Iranian/Persian origin. --Defensor Ursa 19:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Info.

You may check this [6]. Personal attack i.e religion. It might be helpful for you. User User_talk:KSY3 may be associated with this. Theman244 (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

You are very good at figuring out on these sort of articles that who is pushing POV ..etc.. I would simply suggest that after 1 or 2 tries, going to admins such as folantin, Doug weller, Dbachmann etc. and also reporting bad-editing behaviour and POV pushing to Ed Johnston.. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I would, but I am more interested in accurately sourcing articles. It is what I do and what I like. I have done this to hundreds of articles especially List of papal bulls. Oddly I haven't found much Persian influences in that article!! LOL. --Defensor Ursa 01:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW sometimes people wonder on some sort of articles why there is a 10s of sources in the intro for a trivial thing.. the problem is that when you put 1 or 2...it can get deleted and then these sort of arguments start all over again..Until there are more good users such as yourself are involved, one needs to put 50 sources for trivial matters to push away POV pushers. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• LOL for the Pap Bulls article. I did run to something interesting recently, although I have to verify it. There is a letter from Holako (grandson of Chinigz Khan) to the pope [7] in Persian [8].

• BTW thanks again for looking out for vandalisms in these article. We simply need close 100 users like yourself and Wikipedia would have been a great place. Due to family and other reason, I am not active as much these days. But I am glad old users like yourself are around. Best Wishes. --96.255.251.165 (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable! That would be so cool to read, if I could read Persian! :-p --Defensor Ursa 01:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems there is a reference to some book: "Christopher Dawson – Mission to Asia "..Haven't read it myself.. thanks again for all your hardwork..--96.255.251.165 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is an amazon link [9]..the letter's translation is alluded to by the author of that website. Take care.--96.255.251.165 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. --Defensor Ursa 01:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Same ip as above. Against thanks to good users such as yourself...--108.18.145.11 (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolving Issue

BROTHER, WHO SO EVER ARE YOU, LET ME REMIND YOU THAT EACH AND EVERY BATTLE IN THIS WORLD IS FOUGHT FOR SOME REASON FOR HAVIN SOME ACCOMPLISHMENT.... THIS BATTLE WAS OF OFFENDING NATURE FROM AFGHAN SIDE, THEY BESIEZED THE JAMRUD FORT EITHER TO DESTROY IT OR TO CAPTURE IT AND THEN TO RETAKE PESHAWAR, WHICH WAS THEIR SOLE MOTIVE. THEY COMPLETED NONE OF THEIR OBJECTIVE. AND AS FAR AS KILLING OF HARI SINGH NALWA IS CONSIDERED, READ PESHAWAR GAZETTE PUBLISHED BY A BRITISHER(UNBIASED VERSION), AND YOULL COME TO KNOW THAT HARI SINGH NALWA WAS NOT KILLED BY ANY AFGHAN BUT BY SOME OF HIS OWN SOLDIERS OWING TO A CONSPIRACY. HAD AFGHANS KILLED HARI SINGH IN FRONT OF THEM,, THEIR MORALE WOULD HAVE GONE AT TOP NOTCHES AND THEY WOULD HAVE EASILY RETAKEN JAMRUD AND PESHAWAR FROM SIKHS, SINCE THEY GET TERRORISED JUST BY MERE MENTION OF NAME OF HARI SINGH.... AND EVEN AFTER THAT DAY,, SINCE 30 APRIL 1837, AND EVEN TODAY, MY BROTHER CHECK OUT THE MAP OF AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN(EARLIER UNPARTITIONED INDIA) AND YOULL COME TO KNOW THAT EVEN TODAY JAMRUD AND PESHAWAR ARE A PART OF PAKISTAN(EARLIER UNPARTITIONED INDIA) AND NOT OF AFGHANISTAN. AND AS FAR AS THE QUESTION ARISES OF KILLING HARI SINGH NALWA WAS AFGHAN ARMIES MISSION, SO PLEAASE LET ME KNOW HOW THEY CAN KILL HIM SINCE THEY WERE ALSO KNOWING THAT HARI SINGH WAS LYING SICK IN PESHAWAR.. HE CAME IN BATTLE FIELD ON INFORMING THROUGH A SECRET COURIER.. SO BROTHER PLEASE STOP MAKING STORIES.... I M ALSO A MUSLIM FROM PAKISTAN,, BUT I JUST FIGHT FOR TRURH NOT FOR FALSE CLAIMS..... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahdaan Khan (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am not Muslim, nor Christian or any other religion.

If you are interested in factual representation of this battle then sources should not be removed nor ignored. Taking this issue to the talk page gives you the opportunity to present your facts for your opinion. Continued edit warring can and will result in a block or ban. --Defensor Ursa 00:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Shahdaan Khan may be this blocked editor >> ABDEVILLIERS0007. He said "I M ALSO A MUSLIM FROM PAKISTAN" but according to this >> [10] [11] he or she appears to be from Delhi, India.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Take your typical childish accusations elsewhere, Lagoo sab.[12] --Defensor Ursa 21:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you

look at the contributions of EMr KnG (talk · contribs)? Clearly pov. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have seen so many of those type of "contributions" that I simply revert them and move on. --Defensor Ursa 16:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There should be a place to simply report such users and they will be banned automatically (without wasting so much effort). Unfortunately, there is a lot of users like this..and there is not enough admins and experienced good NPOV users to help. I want to thank both of you guys for doing your best and best wishes to both you.--108.18.145.11 (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for looking out for vandalisms in various webpages..you might want to see [[13]] and here:[14][15]..incase of future vandalisms..--108.18.145.11 (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Need your help in an article

Hi Kansas bear, I need your help in an article called "Sultanate of Rum", vandalized by Turkish nationalist and even including dubious sources from books like lonelyplanet travel guides. The guy has a profound anti neutrality agenda, even removing the Persianate description of the state and changing a section about Sultanate's architecture, by renaming it as "culture", in order to move around the sources for the Persianate terms. I think it needs to be addressed by more than one person to kick out the nationalistic bias from the article.Qatarihistorian (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Seljuq dynasty and states

Please take a look at the arguments I recently brought up here. --Mttll (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Durrani Empire

Hi, thanks for your contribution to the article Durrani Empire and for your constructive comments on its talk page. However, in July and August, most of the article's content was removed by the blocked user Nasir Ghobar. Compare the current revision of the article which has EMPTY sections, to July 16's revision. Maybe, we should restore the removed sections? Khestwol (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. --Defensor Ursa 17:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Mail

You have some at the last address I had for you. I dunno if it answers anything, but it's there. Best, Kafka Liz (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Persianate agenda

Seems to be an anti-Persianate agenda in wikipedia. Having gone through your history I think you notice the anti-Persianate agenda aswell. Ironically the proponents of Turko-Persian as a replacement of Persianate fail to realize that Turko-Persian is basically "Persianate patronized by Turks". Something needs to be done about this. Pages related to saljuqian history are at the control of turkish nationalists and their admin friend Steel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.184.191.86 (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

My suggestions for saljuqian articles

Kansas bear, I think to say that Saljuqian empire or sultanate was TurkoPersian is perhaps incomplete. I think itd be better if you say the following: the Saljuqian empire was a Sunni Muslim Middle Eastern empire. It adhered to Turkopersian traditions, in that it was based on a Persianate cultural-linguistic identity while patronized by rulers of Turkic background, in this case the house of Saljuq. The whole thing should be mentioned rather than only half the truth. Dont be intimidated by turkish nationalists. Allow the whole truth to be said. Keep up the good work and keep on fighting the anti-Persianate agenda in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.184.191.86 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair use

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9158964/multipageproject.pdf

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you get this? Churn and change (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sir. Thank you very much! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Turkish people

"By the ninth century, when the Great Seljuk Empire had emerged, the Turks began their expansion to the west directly colliding with the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, the Seljuk Turks defeated the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert; the Turkish language and Islam were introduced to Anatolia (present day Turkey) and gradually spread over the region and the slow transition from a predominantly Christian and Greek-speaking Anatolia to a predominantly Muslim and Turkish-speaking one was underway" This paragraph taken from Turkish people seems to be wrong, since before 1071 Turks were already moving to Anatolia.Kavas (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Genocides in History

I've lost track of how many reverts this IP guy has done in 24 hours... perhaps we should be discussing getting him/her blocked? --Yalens (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That would be prudent at this point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kansas Bear. You have new messages at Talk:Toghrul of Ghazna.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mas'ud I of Ghazni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Buyid dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kurdish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Cisplatine War

The information being used is a direct quote from Stowell himself, not Kingsley. Stowell cites his statement as based on Ron Seckinger's book The Brazilian Monarchy and the South American Republic, 1822-1831. So, well, yeah. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Then it would be prudent to take the information directly from Seckinger's book, along with the appropriate citations(page numbers), and not from the personal writings of a Florida plantation owner during the time of the Cisplatine War! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Prudency would be understanding what exactly is being discussed to avoid making an incongruous comment on the talk page. Stowell's statement is a valid secondary source, regardless of the book or place where I find it. It's as simple as that, with no need to be pretentious. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

LMAO! I, as an uninvolved editor, gave you an option which might have resolved the issue. You, on the other hand, decided to make the issue personal(ie. "incongruous comment", "pretentious"), instead of simply taking the "quoted material" from the original book. This discussion is over. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

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) 02:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tahirid dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Tahirids

That is a good article! Excellent job. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but I do not believe I have done that much. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah you have done excellent job overall on several such articles...minor dynasties that no one really edits. BTW, please keep an eye here: [16] [17]. Thank you.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogical relationships of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

As this article says "This page is intended to reflect the page Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States." I am notifying all those who !voted in the AfD for that article about this AfD discussion. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

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) 09:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

..

Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sock?

Following up on the IP that called you and AnomieBOT and Situs meatpuppets, found this edit. The use of this image as a source is very familiar but I'm not sure who was misusing it. Any suggestions? 08:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Doug, I do not know what to tell you. My revert was of a 119.158.77.247 IP that had blanked nearly half of the article. Sitush apparently reverted the same IP's addition of pics. So then the IP returns under a different address, 182.182.44.244, and throws everyone under the bus.

Do you think it was User:Nasir Ghobar(ie.Lagoo Sab)?[18]

The only other named editor that was disruptive on the article was, User:BozokluAdam.[19] --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of Serbia (1718–1739)

What was a Golden age depends on the point of view. Some authors believe that Golden age of local Balkan population was actually ended with Habsburg wars at the end of 17th and beginning of the 18th century (Pax Ottomana). In case of local population of Central Serbia it corresponds with period 1459-1690. Since this Golden Age assertion remained uncited for more than year it should probably be removed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Uyunid dynasty

Thanks, you've been a great help there. You might want to take a look at recent edits to Bahrain and also my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you for clearafing some information on the page. Ibrahim888 (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ashrf1979 (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)I think I've amended the article so as not to become subject to dispute the article now neutral and rely on different sources and And offer different views we Must cooperate to write a scientific article and neutral rather than the threat of blocking and act like children

Your opinion is not consensus, no matter how you want it to be. You have been edit warring and you have been warned, twice now. The only one acting like a "child" is the person passing off their opinion as consensus and not using the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes! I agree! He says that he will stick with that they were arab and that they were disputes that they are Sunni and Shia. He has been going to every edit that I have done and chnage it without a real expelatin. He does not want to talk about it, he is just changing what ever I have done and removing very importent sources for no resone. Ibrahim888 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, sinse the update was done and most of the things we talked about in the Uyunid dynasty talk page, I was wondering of what you think about this new update? Thank you! Ibrahim888 (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppinion

Hi, I didn't want to return to English Wikipedia. You can guess cause of this my decision. Kurdish ethnocentric claims harm English Wikipedia. these days. I think that Kurdish ethnocentric historiography will repeat the same failure of Turkish History Thesis, Turkish-Islamic Synthesis etc.. and consequently Kurdish ethnocentric approaches will harm Kurdish people themselves. I knew your neutral approach to Kurdish issue, so I want to ask your opinion on Talk:List of Kurdish dynasties and countries & Talk:List of Kurds. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution - "Battle of Jamrud" - notification and reminder

Hello;

I have decided to oversee the resolution of the aforementioned dispute on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am a volunteer at the DRN, and I have reopened the case. However, as I note in my comment thereon, I can do very little without any opening statements by the parties. Should you wish that the dispute be marked as closed, please inform me as soon as possible. Please be aware that in order to close the dispute, I require consensus on this matter from all parties.

I hope this helps you.

--The Historian (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ibrahim of Ghazna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malik Shah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ashrf1979

Ashrf1979 (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC) You can not be sure of my sources because you do not speak Arabic This is your problem not my problem ,But I respect your opinion & I do not want to ignore your opinion So I think that is better to write an neutral article As I done.

Maybe I suffered from a problem in finding sources in English supports my opinion because Mainly I Read in Arabic, But you also suffer from the same problem but different You do not know language it was written the history of this dynasty.

I'm sorry if I disturbed you But you must understand the issue clearly This is not a personal issue This my nation History And I will not allow a falsifying our history, The other person (Ibrahim888) is emirates(not bahrani) He claims that his family descended from the Uyunid dynasty his sources are false and untrue You can check it

You were given a week to present your source(s) for verification and reliability, but instead you have chosen to ignore consensus and the talk page in which it was discussed. I am not interested in your opinion(s) about the Uyunid dynasty or about other editors. Do not edit on my talk page again. Goodbye. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to cleafiy something, I'm not "emirates" nor am I "Bahraini" nor am I from the descendent family. I am Egyptian. Not that I care what your opinion of me is. I stand by the valid view points, and valid Scores. Goodbye. Ibrahim888 (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

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) 13:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

• • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
• If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email failure: Will resend codes

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks Ocassi. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Article verification request

Hi. Please verify recent edits on these articles. A user introduced many errors to them, added unreliable and unverifiable citations, removed content/sources, and obvious POV-pushing. List of articles (but it's better to check all of his/her contributions):

• Delhi Sultanate
• Hephthalite Empire
• Hunnic Empire
• Khwarazmian dynasty
• Mughal Empire

Thanks. Zheek (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email success: Codes resent

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Note

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#EMr_KnG. Regards. --Lysozym (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern uyghur

Modern uyghur was called Turki before 1921. The uyghurs themselves never used the name until that time.

http://books.google.com/books?id=oWj9NreO9zYC&pg=PA173#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q3tAqIU0dPsC&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=BMftUQCm5_IC&pg=RA1-PA97#v=onepage&q&f=false

Numerous sources at Uyghur_people#Origin_of_modern_nationality explain why the people prviously known as turki was renamed uyghur.

There is also a source here Uyghur_language#History.

James A. Millward calls the uyghurs "Turkestani" in his book when referring to them before the 20th century. For the people during and after the 20th century he uses uyghur.

http://books.google.com/books?id=MC6sAAAAIAAJ

Uyghur is acknowledged to be an anachorism by scholars when referring to the people historically

http://books.google.com/books?id=8FVsWq31MtMC&pg=PA93&dq=Uyghur+anachronism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jJgRUYqFJYrn0QHql4DADQ&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Uyghur%20anachronism&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=NKCU3BdeBbEC&pg=PA101&dq=Uyghur+anachronism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jJgRUYqFJYrn0QHql4DADQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Uyghur%20anachronism&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Buyid dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Xiongnu

Hi. Please check Xiongnu and this diff. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad of Ghor

I appreciate your removal of unverifiable citations at the Muhammad of Ghor article. However, the first one that you removed, that I checked, namely: Pakistan resolution revisited - K. F. Yusuf, Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, Syed Razi Wasti - Google Books. Books.google.com.pk. Retrieved 2012-07-11. was verifiable. On pages 8 and 9 of Pakistan Resolution Revisited M. Yusuf Abbasi discusses the second battle of Tarain, and how it resulted in securing Ghurid rule in northern India. The problem was that running the search for battle of tarain in GoogleBooks did not pull up anything, Your search - battle of tarain - did not match any documents. However, a search of just tarain does pull up Battle of Tarain. I've noticed this before, that Google books will occasionally not pull up words that are in fact in the document. I don't know why that is. Anyway, I have restored that citation without reference to GoogleBooks. The second citation you removed: The History of India from the Earliest Ages: Mussulman rule - James Talboys Wheeler - Google Books. Books.google.com.pk. Retrieved 2012-07-11., has a similar problem, page 41 (in both the 1867 edition and the 1881 edition) does indeed discuss the issue, but while the GoogleBooks search screen says that it is a "preview book" in fact it is not, nonetheless a better citation is Sharma's 1970 Rajasthan Studies page 201, which I shall add in its place. If I have time I will check more of them. --Bejnar (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since 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) 07:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Buyid Dynasty

Then do it, i don't really care.. because im writing the truth, false edit summary? i even added two more sources that they were only Daylimites, now what are you going to say about that? im giving you this day to answer me back or else i will change it back. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You have no reason to remove referenced information. Whether you believe it to be the truth or not, is irrelevant. Articles are written from reliable published sources(of which the Kurdish reference checks out). Your removal of Kurdish from the article has been reverted four times and you have not gained consensus on the talk page, therefore your continued removal of Kurdish will be viewed as disruptive and could result in you being blocked. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Malmisanıj

Hi, Kansas Bear. How are you ? Could you control Talk:Mehemed Malmîsanij ? Takabeg (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Is www.zazaki.net a reliable source ? Btw recently I'm interested in Kurdish ethnocentric propaganda against other Iranian minority groups. Do you have information on this issue ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I can do some searching, but the modern era is outside my normal area of editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Aq Qoyunlu and Kara Koyunlu

Hi. An IP users changed language section (infobox) on both articles. I checked the source(s) and it seems those edits are incorrect. Please verify them: Aq Qoyunlu and Kara Koyunlu

Thanks. Zheek (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: About your report

Similar activity on the article Khwarazmian dynasty. I think we deal with the socks of the same user. Please watch Khwarazmian dynasty. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that. I am just going to notify an Admin and see if this can not be addressed directly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. Good. Another is here: Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century‎. Same IP user from the article Khwarazmian dynasty. I'm sure all of them are User:EMr KnG. Zheek (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein suggested filing an SPI. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read the reply on my talk page. Also I've started a consensus section for the Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century on Here. It's interesting that user does not use an account and thinks using IPs is a good way to bypass everything. IP1, IP2, IP3, IP4 – see contributions. Zheek (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

German source verification

Please check diff1. Because that user removed Britannica's ref and wrote a wrong edit summary for the removal of source/sourced text (another article) diff2. I think he/she did the same for that German source. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide and the Battle of Ankara

Hi,

Is there any specific reason why this work should be listed among the sources in the article about Battle of Ankara?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It was used as a source in the article. I suppose someone decided they did not like it and removed it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is not used in the article. I searched this source and found that it does not even mention Ankara.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd. I found it quite easily. [20] --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not odd at all. I searched for Ankara instead of Angora. The source mentions Angora, not Ankara. Once.

That does not answer my question. There are thousands of books about this battle or events connected to it which mention this battle much more than once.

Is there any specific reason for you to add this source to the article taking in consideration:

1. It mentions this battle only once
2. It is not used in the article
3. Its subject is not related to the topic of this article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Shall I repeat myself? "It was used as a source in the article. I suppose someone decided they did not like it and removed it.". If you wish to remove it from the article, knock yourself out. No reason to get all worked up over it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if I sounded like I was worked up over it. I wasn't. I just thought there was some reason I did not see clearly.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

About the user "historyofIran" and his edits

If you check his page, he is known to add unsourced edits to many articles. What he has done in Safavid article is the same, there is no source indicating the claim. This needs to be corrected. I'm pretty sure that it will not be done by that user, who seems to have an agenda. I mean its very simple, the claim is unsourced, and you will never meet a single reference to the claim since its non-existent. Someone should take care of it. Yalquzaq91 (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yalquzaq91 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wusun

If you have time, please take a look at Wusun again. Compare revision 2012-12-30 and the diffs after this revision: diff1 and diff2. That user inserted 5 citations for claim, but it seems that sources are not RS/expert/academic. After this suspected addition, IP user appeared and removed Britannica's content. Can you verify those 5 citations? Thanks. Zheek (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Incidents noticeboard (report)

This is not my report (reported by another editor). The report is about those IPs/IP hoppers. See here. Please write your comment(s). Thanks. Zheek (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

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) 04:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello, there is currently a discussion at AN [21] about a disruptive IP editor with whom you have been involved.Jeppiz (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased lead section

Hi. Recent changes to the Scythians lead section do not match with sources and does not support all theories (Britannica and the others). Better to verify it (sources: 1-7). Thanks. Zheek (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Just compare this diff with previous revisions and sources like Britannica. Biased/POV edit. Zheek (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment

Hi. Please comment: Scythians: Consensus for the lead section: Iranian people or Iranian-speaking people. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

--Al Ameer son (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Carduchi

At the moment this redirects to [{Corduene]], but it isn't clear why there is no separate article. There are loads of sources, including www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CEMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranicaonline.org%2Farticles%2FCarduchi-latin-form-of-greek-kardokhoi&ei=fmhgUa-QAYWZO6j0gYgI&usg=AFQjCNF8M24pA1eqv5lN0lpDUzS-MpNvDA&sig2=p-qUVvok5XljGn2tl__5yQ&bvm=bv.44770516,d.ZWU (spam filter problem so I have to do it this way) and [22], also available as a pdf.[23]. Do you think the reason for no separate article is a nationalistic one, as there is obviously a debate over whether these people are the ancestors of the Kurds. Dougweller (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Global Vision Publishing

You mean Global Vision Publishing Ho is not reliable source ? Takabeg (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Do you know the ethnocentric approach of this user ? For example, this user claimed Undid revision 541667648 by Takabeg (talk) not necessary! stop your turkic-ottoman ethnocentrism) on Ahmed Khani and removed the term Ottoman Empire. But as you know, Ahmed Khani was an Ottoman Kurdish, and the Ottoman Empire is not the same as the Ottoman Turks. When you have time, could you control these Kurdish ethnocentric edits ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Pirisabora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Article

Your list of List of battles involving the Ghaznavid Empire article that you're working on inspired me to do one with the Sassanids, thank you, yeah.. and sorry if i was a little harsh in the Buyid dynasty article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

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 reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

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) 15:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Khwarzamian dynasty

Hi Kansas bear i have seen that you are a very good editor out here.. Just wanted to let you know that in khwarzmian dynasty page , there is something written about tajik origin along with turkic mamluk origin (the origin that seems to be correct due to various authentic sources)which is supported by a bogus reference which doesnt even open. I would really appreciate if you could try and fix that error and also in the military history of iran under the same section i have written turkic mamluk origin but somebody changed it to tajik.. just wanted to ask if there is a claim of tajik on this dynasty is there any proof or any good authentic eveidence like we have in the case of turkic origins of this dynasty. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that "source". I did some checking on Encyclopedia Iranica and could not find a "Shahrbanu". I am assuming the "Tajik origins" refers to the Mamunid governors of Khwarezm, but I have not found any evidence to support this. HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added that information with the "source", I would suggest contacting him and asking for a better link or better source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanx for the quick reply. I sent historyofiran a message about the source from where he got the tajik origin .here is his reply "I am blocked so i can't remove it, and that's strange, because some time ago it worked, you can remove it if you want, i will try to find another source that works if i can" But as you know i have just joined wikipedia so i am unable to edit semi protected articles. i would appreciate if you could edit it and remove Tajik origin until anybody can get authentic sources to it which is highly unlikely. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries i would be pleased to help in this matter. Also i have read some poetry regarding the khawarmian last ruler and how brave he was and he followed persian culture as all the previous and future turk dynasties followed. but i wiil try and get authentic material from some books and will post them to to you via talk .ThankyouSaladin1987 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. That would be excellent. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi,
Thanks for this. You don't have to, though - edits like that are just a consequence of editing in controversial topics, I'm quite used to it. Like your list of maledictions! As long as you keep your cool, edits like that only discredit the person who writes them... bobrayner (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible vandal

Hi. It looks like you are an active member of wikipedia and have already came across user:Realist2010. The user has vandalized a number of topics and has been using original research and false sources that do not back anything that he writes. You have already reverted his edit at the Genocide article (1) and there is more like the following edit and source which mentions nothing about rape. Or here where he adds a source which mentions nothing about ethnic demographics to prove that Tajiks are in majority. It is very clear the user is only here to distort facts and pursue his mainly pro-Tajik and anti-Pashtun propaganda. Your help would be really appreciated. Thanks (Ketabtoon (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC))

Re: Persecution of Muslims article

No problem at all. Iblardi (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims

Before editing this article further, please could you read my notes on the talk page. Thankyou. Op47 (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kurt Dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tajik (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 23:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

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 reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

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) 13:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinion needed

You're active on Ancient Near East history articles so I suggest you to check issue about this Template talk:Yazdânism. Greetings. --46.239.60.21 (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverted

It seems Dragonfly23 is launching something like... a wiki-crusade. Recently he removed without the slightest explanation some tags (wp:or etc) you added before [[24]]. I have to admit that this behaviour is extremely hostile. Moreover, personal attacking seems to be also part of his agenda [[25]] Alexikoua (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Treaty of Erzurum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Erzurum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

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 reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

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) 09:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

IP-hopper

Hi. It seems that old IP-hopper (78.160.xxx.xxx and the others) has returned and launched his/her wiki quest again. Some targeted articles:

• Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo), Timurid dynasty, Seljuq dynasty, Great Seljuq Empire, Xiongnu, Hephthalite Empire, Golden Horde

Again similar edits. I've reported him/her on ANI. Maybe I send page protection request for those targeted articles. Zyma (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Mamluk

My bad, looks like i confused it with some other picture of a Mamluk warrior. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry for butting in – for once I actually find I agree with HistoyofIran on something, i.e. on his initial edit. Whether or not that thing he's holding in his left hand is a pistol (I would think it likely is), and whether or not the white smoke in the background is meant to be black-powder smoke as typical of battle scenes in the early modern era, the picture is certainly meant to illustrate a figure contemporary to the artist, i.e. an early 19th-century Ottoman/Egyptian soldier. No reason to assume a 13th-century warrior would have looked anything like it. Somebody on the article's talk page pointed that out as early as 2009, it seems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I was looking at his right hand. :-/ --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion of Ottoman–Persian War (1821–1823)

Thanks for posting this to the A/NI NB. SG's behavior on these articles doesn't seem too awful, (he does need better cites) but he also has a history of aggressive POV-pushing and incivility. If he's already resolved THAT, maybe he just needs to cite properly and not post uncited material. If he hasn't resolved his earlier issues, however... a WP:TROUT may be in order. --R.S. Peale (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Baltacı Mehmet

Thanks for your contributions to Baltacı Mehmet Pasha. But you seem to disaggree on the name of Catherine I as a briber for she was not a queen in 1711. Well you can see the very same rumour in the article Catherine I (although not a queen, she had already married to Peter in 1707). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The reference I used, simply states suspicion of bribery and dismissal. You can change it back if you want. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crimean campaigns of 1687 and 1689, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Revert on Kaabah

You should tell me, what to put in kabaah temple then, instead of cutting off the whole text then? You must know that it's proved in Dispute resolution noticeboard already Capitals00 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the notions or beliefs held by a select group of individuals should be presented on Wikipedia as fact. Also, you have not established consensus on the talk page. Copying said notions or beliefs word-for-word is plagiarism. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you can tell me, what is your edit, that should be added into the actual page, remembering that both of the sources are approved in Dispute resolution noticeboard, thus they are not really possible to deny whether here, or anywhere. Capitals00 (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you think by mention dispute resolution gives you license to edit fringe beliefs into an article. Wrong. You do not have consensus, plain and simple. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

May i know how? You agreed once to put the same text once already. Now i hope that it's over.Capitals00 (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I never agreed to that information. I said you were cherry picking the quote to show it wasn't merely a notion or belief held by a select group of individuals. Twisting my words will not help your situation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You've been accused of sock puppetry

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kansas Bear. Bet you can't guess who's raised this! :-)Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

LMAO! I guess the name Kansas Bear is not the best hint as to my location. I was going to notify Jingiby, but you already did. Thanks Doug!

Topic ban violation by DTiger

Seems he has became again active in the exact topics he is banned (only 10 days after the restriction is imposed), not to mention his aggresive nature to remove comments which kindly inform him about his violation. Since he knows very well that he is violating, I've informed Edjohnston to take the necessary measures.Alexikoua (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

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) 16:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Sandwich (1460) conundrum

I have a conundrum. The battle of Sandwich 1460, is called a naval battle/skirmish. However, according to The Reign of King Henry VI by Ralph Griffiths, this was a minor land skirmish between the Lancastrians and Yorkists. My conundrum is, should I go ahead and change the battle to what this source state?(the only source is a link that is not searchable) or leave it and simply mention it on the talk page and hope for a response? I have also considered letting user:Neddyseagoon know as well. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Kansas bear. This is quite straightforward, and the answer is No. The naval battle was in January (at the time, it would have been called January of 1459), and the "minor skirmish" came in June 1460, when the town of Sandwich was captured. That is unlikely to be notable. I shall try to add a few more sources to the existing page. Moonraker (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Come on now

Just tell us how much ASALA and PKK paid you. No need to hide it, man, come on. :) --Երևանցի ^talk 00:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not enough to buy me a car, since I still don't have one. :-/ --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Those Armenians and Kurds have enough money to lobby against the poor Turks and write fantasy books about the so-called genocide, but didn't pay you enough to buy a car? I'm so done, this life ain't fair. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Yerevanci, you don't know? That Kansas Bear doesn't recognize his Mercedes Benz CLA as a car. :-/ Capitals00 (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

What an ungrateful man. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I have rewritten (paraphrased) work from Rubenstein's book and made contributions. Thank you Vincedumond 16:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

My sincerest thanks for helping construct a better Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

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) 00:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Khaqani

Please review this POV/biased/unreliable edit[1] on Khaqani article. Zyma (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

List of massacres in Turkey

Hello, I am writing this to you in order to inform you that some Turkish-related articles have for quite some time been hijacked by a group of editors whose only goal, it seems, is to negatively portray the Republic of Turkey, its predesseccors and its people as warmongerming murderers. This has especially become a problem in the article of List of massacres in Turkey where they only allow information about Turks killing others, and delete all reliabely sourced information about massacres against Turks/Muslims. By doing WP:OR, discrediting sources and authors, source falsification, distortion and tag bombing.

Sources which state the number of Muslims casualties during the Greco-Turkish war is persistently being deleted.

Your help is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.77.28 (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern, however such articles typically fall prey to nationalistic editors and I doubt my intervention would resolve anything(ie. see the banning of DragonTiger from Turkish related articles) . I would suggest notifying a Admin to ensure NPOV within the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Kansas Bear, are you familiar with Middle East history in 20th century, namely Kurdistan region? There's one month-running issue and I'm searching for someone serious who has knowledge about issue. If you're one or you know someone, please inform me. You can see in short here where problem lies. Best regards, --HistorNE (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kansas Bear. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 20:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil 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) 00:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Buyid dynasty.

I changed it because it was misunderstood by our fellow Wikipedians, the sources meant the Daylamite REGION[26], not the city known as Daylaman. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Then how is linking it to the Dailamites make it a region? Where as searching for Daylam leads to Gilan. Per The History of Iran, by Elton L. Daniel, page 74;"The Buyid dynasty was likewise founded by a soldier of fortune, Ali b. Bouyeh, and his brothers. They came from another remote and heterodox region, the mountainous area of Gilan known as Daylam.". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes exactly, they came from a area/region, not a city, the link shows us a city. I think that it would better if it would be like this then: origin from Daylaman in Gilan, instead of showing it like this: origin from Daylaman in Gilan. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with that. Region should link to region, not people. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The only reason i showed a link of the people was because it told a bit of info about their region and it showed a map for that, but never mind that, im just glad that we agreed on something. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Missed your last 2 posts and will look into them. However, another issue. We have Avshar Turkmen and Afshar tribe which we need to merge. Need to decide title and what gets merged to what. Any thoughts? Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Turkish people

Hello Kansas Bear. Can you also please look at the page with respect various editors falsifying sources? I already asked Sandstein about it [27]. A detailed explanation is here User_talk:Proudbolsahye#Falsification_of_Sources. I shouldn't have to fix people's sloppy work. Cavann ^(talk) 21:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)