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 Vinay Jha (talk | contribs) at 09:37, 21 August 2015 (→‎Wrong Editing of Muhammad_of_Ghor: No attack.). 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]

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

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]

Yozer-

sounds like something for AE, it wouldn't be appropriate for an Arb to take action. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What an excellent idea. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

care to help?

Can you watch some pages concerning India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran? I have a disruptive user Ghatus dumping huge amounts of unsourced or unreliably sourced material in multiple pages. His POV agenda pushing is causing me to constantly sift through lots of books cuz I wanted to give him the benefit of doubt and only by reading multiple books of same author do I get to know what kind of writer he is. I am asking this because I was recently dragged into an edit war by a puppet master using five socks and got a 24 hour chill pill slapped on me. So don't want anymore bans even if the other guy is not being good. leave a reply on my page and I will link you the list which needs watchingFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already informed Admin. Wait and watch, Mr.FreeatlastChitchat. Your repeated vandalism with different IPs/User Names won't work, Mr."Xtremedood". What you have done in Mughal–Maratha Wars , Mughal Empire , Third Battle of Panipat etc are pure vandalism. See Talk Page there.Ghatus (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest using the talk pages of the respective articles. If Ghatus is using "unreliable sources", then you should "prove" it on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul / Constantinople

Sorry if I'm mixing you up with another editor, but have you in the past been opposing edits that rename Constantinople Istanbul where the period covered is when the city was called Constantinople? If you are that editor, is there anything you'd like to say about this one: Istanbul Armenian Genocide memorial Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will pass. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


second battle of Anandpur

Hello sir , I wanted to tell the admin that the Second battle of Anandpur year 1701 is not appropriate there is an little wit mistake . I have a source of the battle. Please visit the talk page of the article thank you sir Shah439 (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you learn talk page etiquette. Stop removing other editor's talk page comments and stop edit warring (including the IP you are using). --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes you are right sir . I am ashamed of my behaviour. But at that time I was unaware about this now I learned thank you sir please now clear my doubt I would be highly thankful to you. Shah439 (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sir I request you to take immediate check on the article Second Battle of Anandpur. Shah439 (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


World War I

Hi, further to the message you left on my talk page, please see the WWI talk page, I am trying to discuss the matter with other editors to reach a consensus, there is no edit warring. Thanks IQ125 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of your discussion on the talk page, you are edit warring. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 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) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like another return

Hello Kansas Bear,

Seems like that same use who's been multi-blocked and added those bogus texts on behalf of the Sikh Free Slaves has returned to Wiki under another sock. You've reverted several of his attemps where he/she tried to put it again in the articles related to Nader shah's invasion of the Mughal Empire, but I think we got another one of him here.

Here he/she states on the talk page i have a source which claim that while nadir shah was returning home his army was attacked by sikh forces and they freed all the slaves. Admin listen to my request reply me soon i will put forward my source thank you [[13]]..

...which is exactly the same material/content as confirmed sockpuppet of Amarharleen ([14]) stated here in the article [[15]]

Either simply a caring ducky, or simply a person with the same obsession for that material. Haha

- LouisAragon (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI has been opened. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah good, just saw the results. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref fix

Hello Kansas Bear,

Could you perhaps do a reference fix here on this recently created article of mine? [16] I want to nominate it for GA/DYK in the very near future, and I believe having neatly put references is a part of being able to correctly pass the reviews.

If you could help me with that, that would be nice.

- LouisAragon (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what type of fixes you want. If you want something similar to what is on the Amadeus VI, Count of Savoy article , I would suggest you speak to user:1bandsaw. That person has more experience doing references of that style. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's exactly the thing I want. Ah Alright, thanks, will contact him about it. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice of Provence and Runciman

Hi, would you elaborate on your reasons for this edit to Beatrice of Provence? The edit summary says "removed Goldstone, not a historian." I didn't add Goldstone and have no opinion about her reliability as a source, but I am troubled by your removal of: Runciman, Steven (1958). The Sicilian Vespers: A History of the Mediterranean World in the Later Thirteenth Century. London: Cambridge University Press. OCLC 315065012. Runciman was a historian and if Wikipedia is to be believed, a distinguished one and expert on the Middle Ages. This volume is from a respected publisher. Citing it where no other source is cited seems a definite improvement to the article. What is your objection to the material (other than Goldstone) that you removed? Worldbruce (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to Runciman. I have reverted my screw up and kept Goldstone's opinions out of the article. I do not know what happened. Weird! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the kind words about my referencing! 1bandsaw (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

State forming in South-Central Asia during the IVC and Achaemenid era's - nope

There's this user that keeps adding this historical bogus to the infobox here,[17],[18] and when I revert it, he leaves me a message that I dont adhere to a neutral point of view [19].

Whilst I would have just told this rather on his talk page, he has blocked his talk page or something which makes it impossible to drop a comment unless I revert his own changes there. There was no such thing as even close to the entity of a state in that region of the world until the rise of Mirwais Hotak in 1709. Mentioning the Indus Valley Civilisation and the Achaemenid Empire (simply because that region was part of one of the easternmost regions of the empire) to be responsible for state forming there, is simply nonsensical as I believe you would agree with me.

Should I just revert his changes on his talk page so I can drop this there too or?

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 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) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source?

Hello Kansas Bear, I was wondering if you could help me a little bit and tell me whether this is a reliable source or not? [20]. Something tells me it isn't, but I don't want to make any stupid decisions without properly knowing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, Global Vision Publishing has been know to copy information from Wikipedia. So, no probably not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, appreciate it, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaznavid flag

I'm having some trouble over at Ghaznavids, there's a sockpuppet investigation going on for the user but it was declined for procedural (?) reasons so for the meantime this guy is adding flags to here and at Timur and when I revert him, he linked a "source" that is this, which is OR/primary source. I can't revert anymore and the image he's adding is not only unsourced, it's ugly as a bulldog eating piss off a nettle cos he stapled it together in MS paint or something: this monstrosity is the latest version. Ogress smash! 04:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filing an edit warring report maybe the best option, especially if Binggo666 or his IPs do not engage in discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll take note of it. I'm not very good at figuring out the moderation system for bad behavior here on Wikipedia. Incidentally, the sock used an IP to reply in a couple places and it was in the known sock range of the master, so the issue is resolved atm.Ogress smash! 18:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestion?

Hello Kansas Bear,

I'm thinking about creating several articles about Darius' campaigns in Eastern Europe proper (Western Black Sea coastal regions, subduing of the European Scythians, conquering of the Paeonians, etc.etc.) which Wikipedia as of currently, yet lacks. I was wondering, do you perhaps know a fitting overlapping article title in which I could add all these battles/campaigns he conducted in the region to? Something like "Darius I's campaigns in the Balkans and Eastern Europe?" It has to be something that won't make people get confused with his campaigns against Greece, which also were in the Balkans.

Would like to hear your opinion and if possible, suggestion :-)

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion, it sounds like a wonderful idea. Suggestions, what about European Scythian campaign of Darius I, Paeonian campaign of Darius I? So, if you end up with enough information for Darius' individual campaigns then you could call it Wars of Darius I?? If not then you still have the individual campaigns of Darius.
Just a thought. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great opinion and thoughts. I think those are just the right title's we need (!) I'll most likely start with the Paeonian one whenever I decide to lay the first hand on it, as its probably the one that has the most detailed info about it, and is rather described as a real direct encounter between Darius and the at that time contemporary Paeonian King, whom he fully subdued. Once again, top thinking. ;-) - LouisAragon (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there is another minor thing I'd like your opinion about. We know that Qajar Iran lost its Caucasian territories in the course of the 19th century, comprising contemporary Georgia, Azerbaijan, Dagestan and Armenia, to Russia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Persian_Wars) As of currently, someone changed the redirecting link to "Iranian world" in the lede to "Greater Iran". In my opinion, this is simply not correct. Sure, those lost territories fall under "Greater Iran", but other parts of the Caucasus that were also not under Iranian rule (as in based in Iran, e.g Safavids, Sassanians, Qajars, etc) were/are also part of the Iranian-speaking cultural sphere, namely North-Ossetia, and the other living area's of the Ossetian people. The source also specifically states that "(...) The Caucasus was usually incorporated into the Iranian world, until the 19th century when Russia took it from Qajar Iran". In my opinion "Iranian world" should redirect to Iran, or Qajar Iran, and not to Greater Iran, which is related to the concept to some degree, but historically imprecise regarding the Russo-Persian Wars and the role the Caucasus has played in Iranian history. (namely an integral part of its concept, not per se other Iranian-speaking regions of it).

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The more precise you can be, especially supported by source(s), the better. Qajar Iran seems to work. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uysyn

Hi, Kansas Bear. As you've been a voice of reason at Central Asia-related articles on Wikipedia for many years, your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uysyn would be useful. Krakkos (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to report someone for being uncivil?

Hey Kansas Bear, sorry for bothering you (again), but I was wondering, where do I have to go to report a person for being uncivil/making attacks? I guess it's the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Most times, unless you are "someone of note", Admins just ignore any complaint of incivility. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, once again, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Collapse the strong language. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When i watched your contributions i saw your this edit. I don't think it was a forum message. Your revert was unfair. Therefore i reverted your edit. If you think you are right about revert then explain because i think your that edit was a Turkophobic reaction. Am i wrong about it? By the way, slandering (sockpuppetry) others is not a good thing. I didn't expect that from you. --Qara Khan 15:41, 09 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and Borishad have decided to use Personal Attacks in a pathetic attempt to intimidate me.
Since both of you used personal attacks and appear to only understand such language, therefore you will be spoken to in the same manner.
28 May 2015:Borishad called me an Iranian nationalist for removing his childish Iranophobic rant against an equally childish "7yr old post" by an IP that had stated nonsense about the Zengids being Iranian/Persian.
30 May 2015‎:You restored Borishad's statement intentionally minus his childish Iranophobic rant, whilst being a fucking duplicitous coward by referring to my actions as, "Turkophobia".
"I don't think it was a forum message.","i think your that edit was a Turkophobic reaction.."
And yet you did not restore the Iranophobic part of Borishad's rant, and hid your comment under the cowardly statement, "Turkophobia". And did not respond to my comment on your talk page 22:21, 30 May 2015, until 15:42, 9 June 2015‎, and then continuing your cowardly duplicity by acting like Borishad had not make a fucking childish Iranophobic rant. More evidence of you being disingenuous.
"By the way, slandering (sockpuppetry) others is not a good thing. I didn't expect that from you"
BöriShad (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) is Possible to Dontbesogullible & Böri (same country, different range (same (big) ISP) & (common) equipment).. Here's the link, since you think you know so fucking much. I guess you should educate yourself before making fucking moronic statements, again!
Whilst making a fucking fool of yourself, why don't you waste some of your precious time and look at who has added all the references to the Zengids article. Is there ANY mention of Persian, Iranians? FYI, I argued against the inclusion of Persian in the language section of the template.
See the source that states they are of Oghuz Turk origin, "Bosworth". Who wrote that reference? See how all the sources have the same format? Guess you were too busy issuing cowardly fucking insults to check. Yet again, I have proven how fucking stupid you look. Pity, I thought you did good work on this encyclopedia, until you had to resort to fucking childish insults.
Seeings how Personal Attacks are your stock in trade, you should be able to clearly understand my response. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(In my language now)~On a side note, if a non-sockpuppet editor can provide a reliable secondary source for what is on the talk page, "stirrups ~ Zengids", then such information could be added to the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...

Seems like BöriShad is at it again [21] [22] [23]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, given Borishad's continued racist rants, it might be best to let him hang himself. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 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) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Plagiarism"

This is a joke, right? Recounting historical facts and QUOTING first hand sources is now plagiarism? 69.22.242.52 (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QUOTING? I saw no "QUOTES" around what you plagiarized.
Ramadan was a pagan ceremony practiced by the Sabians, the indigenous Pagan inhabitants of Mecca, that was later adopted by Islam. Ibn al-Nadim wrote in his book, al-Fahrisit, about various religious sects in the Middle East. He said that in the month in which the Harranians fasted for thirty days, they honored the god Sin, who represented the moon. Al-Nadim described the feasts they celebrated and the sacrifices they presented to the moon. Another historian, Ibn Abi Zinad also speaks about the Harranians, saying that they fasted for thirty days, looked toward Yemen when they fasted, and prayed five times a day. Another historian, Ibn al-Juzi, described the Harranian fasting during this month. He said they concluded their fasting by sacrificing animals and presenting alms to the poor. The Harranians called the feast al-Feter عيد الفطر , the same name by which the feast of Ramadan is named.
You copy & pasted the paragraph above, that is plagiarism. Trying reading Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources.
Here are the opening sentences from that page:"In 99.9% of cases, you may not copy and paste text from other sources into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation and may constitute plagiarism. Always write the articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article. Copyright violations are often speedily deleted.". FYI, that is how you quote sentences. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion

Hi. An editor continuously adds Azeris to Iranian peoples article. I've opened a section on talk page: Talk:Iranian peoples#Azeris. But it looks like involved editors can't reach a consensus. Please write your opinion. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, another one.

Hey Kansas,

How are you doing these days? I found another sock of Amanharleen here. Seems this is really one persistent troll. We should AFD the articles he made, as everytime he gets back, he creates a series of articles. Here's the new account, reinstating the exact same edits and having the exact same talking manner/article interest. [24] If you happened to have found more new socks, let me know.

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed and was just waiting for said user to post on an article talk page to confirm. You might check this user. I guess someone needs to file an SPI, again, ugh. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas Bear, aight. Well it's a bit difficult atm as I don't have access to the PC, so filling that stuff is gonna be a bit difficult for me atm. Btw, another thing, the Parthians, heavily Hellenized from the start, clearly used Greek language. I found many sources confirming this, and :I want to thus add it to the infobox, it's just that I'm doubting that I should add it as an official language (which several sources claim), of as an administrative language (which also several sources states; something alike we have in the infobox at Achaemenid Empire.
Literature claiming that it was an official language:~~Kostas Vlassopoulos. "Greeks and Barbarians p 311
Literature claiming that it was an administrative language:~~Antony Eastmond. "Viewing Inscriptions in the Late Antique and Medieval World" Cambridge University Press, 2015. ISBN 1107092418 p 23
What do you think/suggest? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Louis, it appears Xtremedood has filed a new SPI, of which I added a "new user" to the pile.
As for Parthians and their usage of Greek, the more information you can add to the article the easier it will be to place it in the infobox. I think official is pretty much the same as administrative(ie. official = used by officials, officials = government, administrative = government). Granted, "official" does not necessarily mean lingua franca. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From The Age of the Parthians, edited by Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Sarah Stewart, page 3, "The influence of Hellenistic art and culture, particularly in the early Parthian period, cannot be denied and is exemplified by the fact that the Parthian kings adopted the Greek language for their official inscriptions, but the impact remained on the surface." --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kansas, yeah, I agree with that rationale. F.e, this book states that they used Greek as an official language, while the good ol' Aramaic was supposedly actually used as the actual lingua franca. Tamara M. Green. "The City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran". p 45 (Excuse me for messing up this section of your talk page a bit)
Do you think this source above by Green is sufficient enough for adding a small piece of text next to Aramaic in the infobox stating that it was the lingua franca in the empire? If so, I'll make the body of the article congruent with all this info we just discussed (Greek -> administrative, Aramaic -> lingua franca)
PS: your new addition overlapped right at the time I wanted to post a reply, hah. Yep, that basically confirms what we were dying about the usage of Greek. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Btw, LOL @ this removal of your edit. I've already written that person on his talk page that he did wrongly as that "other user", is simply another sock of that puppet master. Competence, thy name is.... :::Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Kansas Bear, I have a remark to make about the Ottoman Empire article. This empire/dynasty was thoroughly Persianized, so I added a line to the lede some time ago mentioning that it was thoroughly Persianate.
"Despite newer added amalgamations, the Ottoman dynasty, like their predecessors in the Sultanate of Rum and the Seljuk Empire, were thoroughly Persianised in their culture, language, habits and customs, and therefore, the empire has been described as a Persianate empire".[1][2][3][4] yes some user of Turkish background (surprise, surprise) removed it instantly saying "the Ottoman Empire was multi-cultural, not just Persian". In my opinion, not having that added to the lede is a severe quality lacking. It's added easily to the Mughal Empire's lede, so why not the Ottoman one? I've added it to the cultural section, but it needs a mention in the lede too. I mean, Ottoman literature, poetry, language, painting, architecture mostly is inspired from it. At a point Ottoman Turkish language's vocabulary had up to 88% Arabic/Persian loanwords, and most of the miniatures and works written up to the late Ottoman period, were in fact total copies of Persian ones. The only two painting schools in the empire were Nakkashane-i-Irani, and Nakkashane-i-Rumi.
Now the question is; how are we gonna add this to the lede without having hordes of raging peoples on our backs? Should we even add this? Any idea? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Özgündenli, O. "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries". Encyclopaedia Iranica (online ed.).
  2. ^ "Persian in service of the state: the role of Persophone historical writing in the development of an Ottoman imperial aesthetic", Studies on Persianate Societies, vol. 2, 2004, pp. 145–63
  3. ^ "Historiography. xi. Persian Historiography in the Ottoman Empire". Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. 12, fasc. 4. 2004. pp. 403–11.
  4. ^ Walter, F. "7. The Departure of Turkey from the 'Persianate' Musical Sphere". Music of the Ottoman court.
I saw your addition and wondered how long it would last. It is going to take some finesse to get that information into the article, along with a bit of cultural inter-weaving. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 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) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another irredentist user

There's this user called "boxman" who's constantly changing sentences where it's stated that Persia is interchangeable with Iran, saying that it's not true. [25] Not the first time he does this. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Navarre and disruptive user

Hi Kansas, I noticed the page protection on several articles affected by the disruptive action of 188.78.134.205. I was not impressed by the ANI's decision at all, the IP's version remains there, and the IP will keep the same after the period. I should point out that I do not have extensive experience on resolution resources and I avoid them (ANI, etc.), but I did add another report against the IP, since it affects more than the 3R rule, so that you are aware of the present state of the matters. I hope I am right. Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise patience. We have sources that state Inigo Arista was Basque, whereas the IP has an Encyclopedia that does not even bother to mention Basque people. If you could get the quote from the source you have that would help. I will continue to search JSTOR and try different approaches to searching. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My report was posted, so let's see. However, I do not think the content is the point of contention, not at all, it may be so to a certain extent in these two articles (K of Navarre and I Arista), but for example the removal of a fully valid reference (Collins) for a (dodgy, as far as I am concerned) reference that does not shed any light whatsoever on ethnicity is a disregard to formal procedures and accuracy. That follows no specific criteria but "I don't like it", as you pointed. It all boils down to a behaviour / attitude issue (involving about 8-9 articles). Iñaki LL (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

Hello, Kansas Bear, and thank you for making good edits in Walter III of Châtillon. I am curious, however: why Chronica Albrici Monachi Trium Fontium is not the good source when Walter is mentioned there?--Miha (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Primary sources.
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."
Therefore, since the Chronica source did not indicate author, page number or secondary source supporting it, I removed it as an unsupported primary source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you on explanation! ;)--Miha (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hi. I've opened a consensus on here. If you're interested, please write your comment. Thanks. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Editing of Muhammad_of_Ghor

You have made a wholesale revert of my contribution in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_of_Ghor due to your ignorance of Indian history, falsely writing that my edit was "unsourced". I had clearly mentioned the source as the book "Mediaval India" (vol-1) by Prof Satish Chandra , the most famous authority on Mediaeval India. This book was accepted as the basic textbook by NCERT. If you do not know the meaning of NCERT which is the official syllabus making body of Govt of India, or about this book cited by me, you could have searched in Google. This book is freely available online, e.g., http://fi.gb.pgstatic.net/attachments/01782f3f6f2b488b9b324b0d19a4c611.pdf Read the top paragraph on page 27 of this book which says exactly the same thing as mentioned by me. There are other similar references in the same book. There is a Wikipedia article on Prof Satish Chandra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satish_Chandra) who is seniormost authority in the whole world on Mediaeval India. Personally I do not like the Marxist ideology of Prof Satish Chandra, but I do not like one-sided or wrong views. This book "Mediaval India" (vol-1) was basic textbook for many decades (I first read it around 1984) before the pro-Hindu right wing BJP govt came to power in New Delhi in 1998, but after Congress returned to power in 2004, this book was again restored as the basic textbook in all schools in India. In this book Prof Satish Chandra cites varioius views, but rests his opinions on solid proofs, such as coins. The present BJP govt in India is planning to remove this book as basic textbook in schools, but no decision has been taken because many books are under review, and this book is still the basic textbook in all schools under govt control in India. I am not going to revert your action because reputed universities have already declared that Wikipedia should not be cited as reliable source due to its ill-educated editors. I had wasted much time in improving Wikipedia, but due to fighting attitude of ill-educated editors, I lost interest in editing Wikipedia. Sometimes I see an error, I correct it, and soon I find my corrections removed by someone who think they are too wise to TALK before reverting. It is your duty to mend your mistake, if you have any love for Truth and Sourced material. 03:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)VJha (talk)

I prefer factual information compared to incoherent rambling added to an article/paragraph. I saw nothing relevant added to the Muhammad of Ghor. What you added broke the flow of the paragraph and was clearly off topic.
FYI, consider this your only warning, the next time you arrive on my talk page and spew personal attacks at me, you will be spoken to in the same manner. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your "information" if written better could be added to the Prithviraj Raso article. It clearly has more to do with the poem than Muhammad of Ghor. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in fighting, and that is why I left editing Wikipedia as a regular and frequent editor. I am not going to edit either Prithviraj Raso or Muhammad_of_Ghor. I have provided enough information as well as reliable source and if you are really interested in these articles you can use these materials (which are in public domain, I do not own these materials). It is unfortunate that if a mistake is pointed out, you take it as a personal attack. I had no intention of offending you.VJha (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kansas_Bear&oldid=677131661"