Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 31 December 2015

Archives

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/User_talk:Materialscientist# remember the report is at the bottom of his page. Thanks! Ranabhai (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

For the next accusation of Anti-Turk/racism

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

Happy New Year!

Dear Paramandyr,
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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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)

Ahmadilis

hi can you look on page ahmadilis a guy has added a reference from Iranian[REDACTED] 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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Enough rope?

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

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:

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Turan22/Archive and
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/O.Turani/Archive

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)

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)

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

A major problem

This guy Qara xan is getting on my nerves now. I am trying to expand this article , but he simply reverts me . 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)

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)

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 and i have tried to discuss with him but it is hopeless . 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)

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)

Well, if he get what he wants it will only get worse. A good example is this article , 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)

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

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

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: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

need some help

Hello! Kansas Bear I need some help, could you give me a list of rules of this Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages (as his user contribution shows - ). 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)

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)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Banned EMr_KnG (sock master) returned to WP

His new accounts:

• Madyas (talk · contribs)
• Mehmeett21 (talk · contribs)

Compare with old account:

• EMr_KnG (talk · contribs)

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

Prithviraj Chauhan

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

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)

Qutb Shah

Dear sir, hello, I am an occasional editor here at Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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

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

AN discussion

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Okay. I don't see any issues. --Zyma (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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.] 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)

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))

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 . --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

Take your comments to the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Alicewond/Archive, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Uniquark9/Archive, Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

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)

That's not what he said.Rajmaan (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages without any consensus, any mention on a talk page, or any good reason given in his/her edit summaries on both Misplaced Pages'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)

Why not start a discussion on the articles' talk pages and notify Interfase of said discussion(s)? As for Russian Misplaced Pages, I can not help you since I do not read Russian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

I would suggest you post these "sources" and cooresponding quotes on the articles' talk pages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Kara-Khanid Khanate

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015

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 landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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 ]..

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

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)

An SPI has been opened. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah good, just saw the results. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages work, make sure to include citations with links on Misplaced Pages: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Library can offer.

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

Ref fix

Hello Kansas Bear,

Could you perhaps do a reference fix here on this recently created article of mine? 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)

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)

Yep, that's exactly the thing I want. Ah Alright, thanks, will contact him about it. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages work, make sure to include citations with links on Misplaced Pages: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Library can offer.

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

Thanks!

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

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

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,, and when I revert it, he leaves me a message that I dont adhere to a neutral point of view .

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)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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? . 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)

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

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

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)

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)

Thanks, I'll take note of it. I'm not very good at figuring out the moderation system for bad behavior here on Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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/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)

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)

Uysyn

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

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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: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)

Alright, once again, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

New section

Sigh...

Seems like BöriShad is at it again . --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Library needs you!

We hope The Misplaced Pages 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

Send on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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. If you happened to have found more new socks, let me know.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Looks fine to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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". 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)

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)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

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. Not the first time he does this. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please read Primary sources.

"Misplaced Pages 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)

Thank you on explanation! ;)--Miha (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

Wrong Editing of Muhammad_of_Ghor

You have made a wholesale revert of my contribution in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages article on Prof Satish Chandra (https://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages should not be cited as reliable source due to its ill-educated editors. I had wasted much time in improving Misplaced Pages, but due to fighting attitude of ill-educated editors, I lost interest in editing Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

I have no interest in fighting, and that is why I left editing Misplaced Pages 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)

You added this;

• "there is no historical proof of this and related stories based on a court poet Chandarbardai, according to whom Prithviraj killed Muhammad of Ghor which is untrue, Chandarbardai also wrote that he and Prithviraj killed each other but then who composed his poem Prithviraj Raso ? Therefore, Chandarbardai was a liar, trying to glorify his master. Prof Satish Chandra wrote in 'Mediaeval India' which is the textbook prescribed by NCERT that coins were found on whose one side Muhammad of Ghor was mentioned as king and Prithviraj as his vassal was mentioned on the other side. But even today a bard's poem Prithviraj Raso is cited as historical record by lots of persons)."

directly after these sentences,

• "When the state of Ajmer failed to fulfill the tribute demands as per the custom after a defeat, Qutub ud Din Aibak, in 1193 took over Ajmer and soon established Ghurid control in northern and central India. Hindu kingdoms like Saraswati, Samana, Kohram and Hansi were captured without any difficulty. Finally his forces advanced on Delhi, capturing it soon after the Battle of Chandwar, a surprise attack on Raja Jaichand of Kannauj (who was originally an ally who had assisted Mu'izz in defeating Prithviraj Chauhan..."

Clearly this was a break from the topic of the paragraph, introducing numerous points that had nothing to do with this paragraph.

• 1.Chandarbardai is not previously mentioned in this paragraph, nor his related stories.
• 2.(unexplained sentence fragment)"there is no historical proof of this", proof of what? that Mu'izz defeated Prithviraj?
• 3.Also, when calling anyone a liar, we are required to provide a source, I do not see where Chandra called Chandarbardai a liar on page 26.
• 4.As a whole, the context of what you added which addressed the historical inaccuracies of the Prithviraj Raso was not relevant to the paragraph.

As I said, this information could be added to the Prithviraj Raso article if better written and properly sourced.

"It is unfortunate that if a mistake is pointed out, you take it as a personal attack."

Your opening sentence, "You have made a wholesale revert of my contribution in the article due to your ignorance of Indian history...", this is a personal attack, made by you.

As for Chandra's numismatic evidence, I have found only one source supporting the notion that Prithviraj was not executed(Chandra, p26), compared to the numerous sources stating Prithviraj was executed. I simply went with the majority of scholars. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015

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 on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

non-English references

Hi. New user (possible sock, multiple account) added this:

• The Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS): ИЭА РАН. Series "Народы и культуры" - "Карачаевцы. Балкарцы.". 2014, М.: "Наука", 2014, - pages 815., ISBN 978-5-02-038043-1, chapter 2, page 35"

to pending-changes article Karachays (diff1,

1. Find someone that reads Russian; this will speed up the verification process. Perhaps an editor that can read Russian will also know more about the unverified work.

2. Find more sources(English) for this article; if English sources state something different, then a verified work is better than an unverified work

That is what I would do.

FYI, this is the Russian editor that added that particular source to the article in Russian Misplaced Pages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

John the Fearless

I didn't add the Vaughan source. I was just adding verbiage questioning the source. --Victar (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not say you added the source, I said that you did not check what the source stated. As I stated on the talk page, Cristiano Tomás added the unsourced Willem van der Haegen nonsense to the sentence. Instead of adding "verbiage" about Richard Vaughan, you should have checked what the source said.

Also, your addition of:

• Guy of Burgundy, Lord of Kruybeke
• Antoine of Burgundy
• Philipotte of Burgundy

..are unsourced as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Medlands is in no way a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"Medlands is an unreliable source"

MedLands is cited at least 866 times on English Misplaced Pages, most of which are primary sources. Why is the citing on John the Fearless not allowed? --Victar (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That still doesn't make it reliable, and those 866 "sources" need to be removed.

The "unrealiable source" issue is:

1.Who is/are the author(s)? The Trustees?

Robin Evans is by profession an airline pilot?

Joe Edwards graduated from Imperial College, London, in 2001 as a mechanical engineer?

Steve Edwards is a veterinarian by profession?

Jackie graduated in 2001 with a degree in History and Art History from the Open University. In 2006, she completed a Masters in Local and Regional History at Cambridge University?

Lindsay Brook graduated from Wadham College, Oxford, in 1964. He spent most of his career in social research?

Are the authors Giles Dickson? Rosie Bevan? Steven Edwards, (the veterinarian)? Joseph Edwards? Charles Cawley? Regina Hoffmann?

Only one listed trustee appears to even be an historian, although with an MA. As it stands right now, should Misplaced Pages allow a website that relies on a veterinarian to write medieval history, as a source?

"The word "source" when citing sources on Misplaced Pages has three related meanings:

• the piece of work itself (the article, book);
• the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
• and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).
  

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been reading through this talk page, Template_talk:Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley, and I believe it's permissible to cite MedLands using it. --Victar (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

From what I have read, it sounds like an unreliable source. No explanation who Cawley is, no peer review, no publisher. AND, the Medlands article in particular does NOT give a citation for the section of John the Fearless' children legitimate or otherwise. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You should bring that up on that talk page, because the template has the blessing of the community, ego Medland sourced content should not be deleted. --Victar (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. It does not have the "blessing" of the community, and that section specifically has no citation for Jean's children, making it even more unreliable. You must be quite desperate to add his kids to resort to using such tripe off the internet for a source. Of course, then again, you do not know how to check real sources and you edit war what ever you want into an article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

about Birouni

Nothing of history is falsifiable. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

And yet the West source states Biruni was born in what is now Uzbekistan. Making no mention of "At that time in Iran". --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Averros

A user being blocked is no reason to revert their edits. I provided a original source citation from the 14th century. Also, can you get me this article via JSTOR? NonInappropriateUserName (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, since Dante's Inferno used in that capacity is a primary source, I would suggest you find a secondary source to support your assertion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Barbara W. Tuchman

Hello, I saw that, over time, you edited the Antipope Benedict XIII-article. During those edits, you removed reverences to books by Barbara W. Tuchman for her being "not a historian." However, the article on Tuchman clearly states that she IS a historian. In that article I did not see any mentioning of a scandal or something. Nor any mentioning of her at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources. Therefore, I wouldn't mind to restore her information in the article. But before doing so, I would like to have some consensus on this. Why do you think that Tuchman is no historian? All the best, Jeff5102 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Does Tuchman have a PhD from a university? Has she taught in a university? Tuchman is a writer of popular history and has no standing in the academic community, regardless of what Misplaced Pages calls her. FYI, Misplaced Pages can not be used to reference Misplaced Pages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If such information, which was sourced by Tuchman, is factual, then I am sure you should be able to find a published secondary source for it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring/Source misrepresentation

You are mistaken. He is listed on line of that page, ]

I do not see a quote... --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley

Short answer

Have you looked up the conversations at WP:RS/N? Probably best to start with Template talk:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley.

Longer answer

I looked through your edit history to see what sparked this question and came across this: John the Fearless history. My point in the discussions is that Cawley is an unreliable source. But his sources can be reliable. So in my opinion he is a case for SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.

If Cawley is used outside SAYWHEREYOUREADIT ie as an unsupported source then I think you should not immediately remove his unsupported citations but instead turn on the flag warning=1. After a suitable length of time as mentioned in WP:PROVIT not only should the citation be removed but also the text that it supports.

Where Cawley is used to support SAYWHEREYOUREADIT then long term the source he cites needs to be accessed (so Cawley can be removed), or another more reliable source that cites the reliable source needs to be used in place of Cawley.

Cawley also speculates on relationships (POV), and also makes assertions (facts) without the support of reliable sources, which if he were a Misplaced Pages editor would be a SYN.

The point is that the Cawley is a self appointed researcher, I think that his input should not be treated as reliable but rather as if he were a Wikipeida editor (and his research should be treated as if he were). I am willing to take his sources on a SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, to be replaced as soon as possible, but otherwise he ought not to be used as a source.

-- PBS (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Just checking in because User:Victar asked me to look at this discussion, I think because I was involved in past discussions on this subject. I can not see what the particular example was so I can only speak in generalities. I think it is correct that we need to be careful about this source for the reasons given by PBS (no editorial process, it is a one man project, and quite openly an on-going one, not a finished work), but I also think it is very useful for finding other sources that are more compatible with our RS policy. (Try to find secondary ones of course, especially for complex subjects. But often primary sources can be used on simple matters, depending on the case.) As a side issue I do wonder about whether we should jointly cite helpful sources which lead us to reliable sources, under the general philosophy of "say where you read it" (as well as avoiding plagiarism) but I know many Wikipedians do not believe this is the Misplaced Pages way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, have looked at the John the Fearless discussion and am not sure what the fuss is about really. Which points are being called unsourceable? (Or is it resolved?) A quick google for JEAN de BOURGOGNE, Bishop of CAMBRAI seems to give a lot of hits and some mention his parentage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• https://books.google.be/books?id=5R_2clxgcr4C&pg=PA277
• https://books.google.be/books?id=F4Wvl-xRpAoC&pg=PA118

To keep this conversation in one place, this was the message posted by Victar to User talk:Andrew Lancaster:

Sorry to trouble you, but could you comment on User_talk:Kansas_Bear's talk page about citing MedLands? From what I read on Template_talk:Medieval_Lands_by_Charles_Cawley, it seems acceptable, particularly if you use it as a secondary source. Thanks for your time. --Victar (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Victar the question is not "is Cawley a secondary source" clearly Cawley is a source and he is not a primary one. The question is is does Cawley's web publications meet the requirements of a Wikiepdia reliable source? He does not! But the sources he cites which are often primary sources which are reliable providing they are used in a way described in WP:PSTS, in which case SAYWHEREYOUREADIT applies. The content of Cawley to date like Lundy's The Peerage and {{Rayment}} have proved to be by and large accurate when cross checked against more reliable sources where available. So citing them citing their sources is an adequate temporary measure until better sources can be found. However like Cawley, Lundy sometimes either provides information without a source or relies on email correspondence, which is not a Misplaced Pages reliable source, and so those facts supported only by such unreliable sources should not be included in a Misplaced Pages article. -- PBS (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for taking the time to comment. The MedLands source is the most comprehensive and complete source, and in English to boot, so I think it's a good source to keep, and with the primary sources listed, I don't think the content deserves being deleted either, as User:Kansas Bear insists. Victar (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Victar refuses to get the point. "The question is is does Cawley's web publications meet the requirements of a Wikiepdia reliable source? He does not!", "However like Cawley, Lundy sometimes either provides information without a source or relies on email correspondence, which is not a Misplaced Pages reliable source, and so those facts supported only by such unreliable sources should not be included in a Misplaced Pages article."

I brought up the point that John the Fearless' children did not have a citation on 2 September, "AND, the Medlands article in particular does NOT give a citation for the section of John the Fearless' children legitimate or otherwise." --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No, Kansas Bear, what you did is immediately deleted the Cawley source without having a conversation first, which is contrary to what PBS cites a proper protocol, which is adding a warning. I reverted and worked to find the primary sources and added those, and your reverted my content again. If anything, you should be suspended for edit warring. And that's where we are. If PBS and talk agree that the Cawley source should be removed, now that we have primary sources, I can agree with that judgement. All I was saying is that it's a clear and comprehensive source that might be valuable to have, if indeed the line is blurry, as Andrew Lancaster alluded too. The bottom line is, the content is sourced, by both primary sources and Cawley, and should not be deleted, as you continue to insist without grounds and maliciously. Victar (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, you have a problem reading, I posted my concerns on the talk page and waited 11 days. All you have is your interpretation of a discussion, and your continued refusal to get the point. FYI, there are no sources on Medlands concerning John the Fearless' children, more original research.

"The bottom line is, the content is sourced, by both primary sources and Cawley, and should not be deleted, as you continue to insist without grounds and maliciously.". I see no sources in Medlands over the three illegitimate children....

Taken directly from Medlands:

Duke Jean had three illegitimate children by Mistress (2):
10. GUY bâtard de Bourgogne (-killed in battle Calais 1436). Heer van Kruybeke. m JOHANNA, illegitimate, daughter of ALBERT Comte de Hainaut, Count of Holland & his mistress ---. Guy & his wife had one child:
a) PHILIPPE de Bourgogne . Heer van Kruybeke. m ANNA van Baenst, daughter of ---.
11. ANTOINE bâtard de Bourgogne .
12. PHILIPOTTE bâtarde de Bourgogne . Dame de Joncy. m (30 Jul 1429) ANTOINE de Rochebaron Baron de Berze-le-Chatel, son of ---.

I see no citations for these children. Which the the exact concern PBS mentioned, did you miss that? --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That is completely false, as clearly illustrated in the revisions. You only engaged in conversation after you unjustly reverted my content. You again seem fail to understand the situation. Never did I claim the Cawley listed primary sources. I went back and listed the sources Vaughan 2005 provided, as well as sources from Google Books, and even after that you reverted the content, engaging in edit wars. I'm going to let PBS and Andrew Lancaster comment before wasting my time more on this argument. Victar (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. I removed an unreliable source, then went to the talk page. You, however, after not making any edits on Misplaced Pages or it's talk pages(since 2 Sept), reverted my edit, then went to the talk page(12 days late!), parroting a conversation stating this was your "comment".

"what you did is immediately deleted the Cawley source without having a conversation first"

You mean the one you ignored for 12 days? LMAO. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"I removed an unreliable source, then went to the talk page."

Exactly so! Even though PBS clearly says above the proper action would have been to tag the source with a warning and look for a proper sources, which is EXACTLY what I did, yet you continued to revert the content. Victar (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As this is now about a specific page, I have copied this conversation over to Talk:John the Fearless#Unsourced information added to sourced sentence I suggest that the more public article talk page is a more appropriate forum for this conversation. -- PBS (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. This really is an article discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman-Persian Wars

Any opinion about this? There are two ways of reasoning about it, and both are theoretically correct, and give us either "stalemate" or "Ottoman victory" as answers. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we know what this source states? Gábor Ágoston-Bruce Masters:Encyclopaedia of the Ottoman Empire , ISBN 978-0-8160-6259-1, p.280. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey KB, excuse me for the belated response. I checked the source, and while it does not mention any mention that the Ottomans "won", it mentions that Tahmasp had to acknowledge Ottoman conquerings of Safavid territories. I guess that suffices. I added some better sources to the Peace of Amasya some time ago, perhaps copy/pasting it there as well might help, but I doubt anyone is gonna question the fact on a logical factual based historical analysis that the Safavids ended up with less territories which the Ottomans tooks over, and by that thus the Ottomans won. Its good though we double checked it.

p 280; "In the Treaty of Amasya Shah Tahmasp (r. 1524-76) acknowledged recent Ottoman conquests (...)"

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the source, which is written from a decidedly Ottoman tone, does make it sound like the Ottomans won. We might just stick with the source, for now, and state, "...Safavids acknowledged Ottoman conquests...".?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: Actually I checked some other sources and this is what they state;

p 504; "Declaring a truce in 1554, Suleyman made peacea at Amasya abandoning all claims to Tabriz, Erivan, Nakhchivan, but retaining control of Erzurum, Mesopotamia, western Armenia and most of Kurdistan..." ()

p 134; "In 1534 the Ottomans conquered what is now Iraq from the Safavids. Iran accepted the Ottoman gains in the peace Treaty of Amasya (1555)". ()

p 3; "Ottoman-Safavid confrontations in the Caucasus region eventually ended in the Peace of Amasya (1555) Between Selim's son and successor Suleiman the Magnificent and the Safavid Shah Tahmasp, which resulted in the partitioning of the Caucasus between the two empires." ()

p 698, Alexander Mikaberidze; "A Safavid attack on Erzurum in 1552 led to a counterattack by Suleiman who reclaimed Erzurum and invaded western Iran in 1553-1554. Unable to defeat the Ottomans, Tahmasp chose to negotiate, signing the Peace of Amasya (1555). Under the treaty, the two powers determined their spheres of influence. Iran received Azerbaijan, eastern Armenia, Eastern Kurdistan, and eastern Georgian kingdoms, and the Ottomans claimed all of western Georgia, Arabia, Iraq, western Armenia, and western Kurdistan." ()

Not really an unanimous conclusion by some of these sources I just quickly found. What we know is that it simply made official the status that was going on since the Battle of Chaldiran, with the exception of Western Armenia and Mesopotamia, which were in the hands of the Safavids prior to this war. Still, it was definitely a Safavid territorial and political loss, as they had to sue for peace and partially accept Ottoman conquerings which belonged to them. Had they not, they would've probably lost even more territories.

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (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. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed  05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ghassanids unfair deletion

Dear Sir, you're simply undoing the edits without checking the sources. Apart from YouTube and blogs there are 3 (three) reliable news agencies. As far as Misplaced Pages guidelines, no more than one is required. The Zenit news agency from Vatican has published the interview in four languages. The other news agencies are from the Middle East. Kindly check the sources before making the deletions. The current ones are completely in harmony with Wikepedia rules. Thank you. 188.247.72.196 (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC) IP

Actually I removed unreliable source(s) and you are clearly edit warring, and since you are SO conversant with Misplaced Pages rules, you know that is disruptive editing. Oh, and kindly learn how to use talk pages properly. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything but presenting multiple sources for my edit. According to Misplaced Pages rules, that you love to invoke, my edit should never be deleted in the first place since the very first moment the Zenit source (a reliable and reputed European news agency) was there. Therefore, all those edits were provoked by unfair deletions by you and other editors. If you cannot respond to reliability of Zenit, please, kindly revert my edits keeping only the Zenit source, if that's the case. I apologize for my lack of knowledge of Misplaced Pages procedures but it's my first time editing and I don't spend the whole day in front of the computer. Thank you 188.247.72.196 (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You're the one that "invoked Misplaced Pages rules",("As far as Misplaced Pages guidelines..") I simply warned you against edit warring which you were doing. Your snide remark, "..and I don't spend the whole day in front of the computer", clearly indicates you are not here to build an encyclopedia. AND, since you have had to resort to such a childish remark, do not post on my talk page again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I noted that we reverted the same user. Looking by User:82.75.5.145 contributions his only interest seems to push ottoman POV around. Maybe it's worth a check. SuffrenXXI (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Kansas. I apologise for not looking into the matter of the IP sock but as you may realise I've been busy the last while. Hopefully when things return to normal I'll have some time to check this out. Take care. Δρ.Κ.  02:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you were involved with an issue, so no worries. It's all cool, Doc! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping you would. :) Thank you Kansas. Take care. Δρ.Κ.  03:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Domnus

It's not the first time that Rolandi adds non-existent books in order to support a fictional fact. Here he adds an inline citation with a non-existent ISBN ] as part of his edit-warring nature.Alexikoua (talk) 05:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering, since I could not find anything. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Anotherclown and Sturmvogel 66 on war in the air and at sea Review essay: Auntieruth55 on the French Revolutionary Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the entry of Bulgaria in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR sources regarding the character of the Ottoman Empire

Hey KB, how are you doing? I was just re-thinking about a topic we discussed not that extremely long ago. Most of those empire articles on Wiki (e.g Seljuks, Sultanate of Rum, Qajars, etc) state their cultural "ethnicity", f.e if they were of Turkic, it states that they were culturally Turko-Persian, Persianate, etc. etc. The Ottoman Empire article however, which patronised Persian culture for 5 centuries as a Persianate dynasty ruling a transcontinental empire with a multi-ethnic/cultural society, oddly does not show this. I wondered whether you could link me some good sources from JSTOR that could be added to the lede stating at leas the Persianate character of the dynasty, so I can finish the lede with that. That would be definetely an improvement for the article, I believe. I already have a good sentence build-up in mind that should avoid "pov-pushers" from removing it as well. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Comparing the Seljuks, Sultanate of Rum, Qajars, et.al, to the Ottoman Empire has a serious flaw. Those listed as Persianate or Turko-Persian were mainly that culture from beginning to end. Whereas the Ottoman Empire was initially Persianate in some cultural aspects which slowly became more Turkish over time.

It does make mention of this in the Ottoman Empire article:

• "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."

and in Culture of the Ottoman Empire article:

• "There was a strong influence from the customs and languages of Islamic societies, Turkish "the official language for the Empire, notably Arabic because of the origins of Islam, while Persian culture had a significant contribution through the heavily Persianized Seljuq Turks, the Ottomans' predecessors."

I am not sure what exactly where you want to go with this. Considering the multiple influences on the Ottoman Empire, I am not sure we could find sources giving enough weight for Persianate, in the lead or even more than what is already stated.

Might I suggest you read the following articles?

• Culture of the Ottoman Empire
• Ottoman poetry
• Ottoman architecture
• Turkish literature --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe I might have been somewhat inaccurate in describing my point, KB. While obviously the dynasty became more and more "Turkish" over time, I was thinking about adding a line in the trent of: "The empire was ruled by the Ottoman Dynasty, who initially patronised Persianate culture, though which would be eventually gradually replaced by an increasing Turkish character. The transcontinental empire which they ruled from its earliest days was characterised by its multi-cultural and multi-ethnic identity".

Something in the lines of that. However, on a second thought, its probably too undue and edit-war material-ish. What do you think?

Btw, wasn't this fanboy the same person who was reverting multiple of your edits some time ago on articles such as Armenian language? Kinda a known person on ANI/SPI pages? Just so I know. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I would agree that some type of indication of the Ottoman Empire's cultural change would be beneficial, but due to the multitude of influences that made up the Empire's culture, it would be like sifting gold from the ocean.

As for the fanboy, there is a reason he had been banned from topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as ethnic conflicts related to Turkey. But that ban was lifted, unfortunately. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I concur that the multitude of influences is what should make us avoid adding such thing to the lede. Parts of it are anyway already added to the articles' body and sub-articles, so that's a decent thingy, for a start.

Alright, that's what I needed to have confirmed. Im obviously not even gonna respond to his ramblings. Its a sad case indeed that the ban was lifted, but he'll burn his hands against pretty soon like this. Have a good night (or day, if you're indeed living in Kansas, heh). Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Was there any doubt as to my location? Unfortunately, for me, I am living in Kansas. Hundreds of miles away from Chicago(I'm a Bears fan). --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Haha, well, you could've always just hailed originally from Kansas but perhaps would be living somewhere else, so I kept the sentence open for . :-)

Btw, I was about to write a comment on the Alhazen page as you requested, but I noticed that my (apparently he is) fellow compatriot Ruud already posted an encompassing, good comment. I cant state much else than that I concur with his words. I would like to add something more valuable for you to the discussion, but looking at whats been already posted it would simply be a refurbishment of already said sentences, I'm afraid. Oh, I checked some books in the hope whether I could find some proper first-hand sources that have some proper ethnicity description, but its almost impossible, except for the one already posted by you from the Encyclopedia of Islam (if you want something post-1850 at least). I believe that that user who brought it up should just leave it at that, really. Pff. Or perhaps that what Kautilya3 suggested (Persian and Arab), but even that I checked and its mostly just single-sentence statements. Sure, there are many quotations from various sources that state him as being Persian too (and frankly, it wouldn't be odd at all given the history of that area) but seriously none of them that I found are proper descriptions of first-hand accounts, and thus inferior IMHO.

If anything else, or if you still want a comment of mine anyway on it, let me know. - LouisAragon (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Cession of modern-day Azerbaijan

Could I ask you to leave a comment here whenever you have time? About what you think regarding the addition of undue information (see talk page) to the section. The user basically changed several well-sourced sentences to quite drastically change the content of it, and more importantly furthermore added some lame copy/pasting about that the khans of the Caucasus signed treaties with the Russians during the Russo-Persian Wars, even though the khans and the treaties had absolutely no say in the issue, the latter which only got settled through the Gulistan and Turkmenchay treaties between Russia and Persia. Me and another user (Ninetoyadome) told him to add it to actual relevant articles (such as History of Azerbaijan, Karabakh Khanate, etc), and explained why his edits are wrong, but he doesn't want to even hear about it and labels everything said as "POV". The khans were furthermore not even mentioned in the Gulistan/Turkmenchay treaties, but even that is "pov" according to him. Mainly JDL with some nationalistic agenda as you can see, but worth fixing I believe. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I left you a reply on my talk page, btw. There are tons of more sources (yeah, you can call me fanatic about historical factuality) that that stipulate that the only actual ceding was made by Iran and not by some of those khans. As a result, on 24 October 1813, Iran had to sign a peace agreement at the Karabakh fortress of Gulistan, according to which the Karabakh khanate and five other khanates of Northern Azerbaijan passed under the authority of Russia. - source; Yunus, Arif. Karabakh: past and present Turan Information Agency, 2005. page 29.

Excess, falsification of history, sock puppetry and insults

Hi, I saw that you had some words with , I suspect that he is (same comments on same articles, same frenchbashing, same ip origin in the UK). He is violating all the rules of WP. He is insulting, try to modify the articles with a very special point of you (Calvin and Farell are not born in France according to him), brings non pertinent sources. His obsession about the French language, and his persistents non neutral edits are not doing any good at WP. --Gabriel HM (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

These IP(s) have also restored plagiarism(Noyon article) which is explained on the Noyon article talk page. This explanation was summarily ignored by the IP(s). It may take some time, but I believe the IP(s) will run out of rope soon enough. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

IP address editing Turkey-related articles

Have you noticed edits by 186.222.152.102 on a range of articles like Enver Pasha, CUP, and Ottoman Entry into World War I? I'm wondering if it might be a blocked user, maybe Ithinkicahn. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not encountered any IPs of that range. I have run across, 81.214.232.205, and these 3 cowardly IPs 129.252.33.41,108.194.129.83,2602:306:CC28:1530:50C0:643A:E2E3:4C1C. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I should have checked the IP address first. 186.222.152.102 is in Brasil, Ithinkicahn was from the US, so probably isn't him even though there is a match with the articles they edited. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this verifiable?

Hey KB, how are you doing? Regarding your previous message, I contacted someone else with more up to date Russian than me, and he confirmed that the sentences deducted from it are indeed to a large extent source fraudings, so that thingy will be resolved soon. Btw, I wondered whether you could check these statements out that's been added to the Greco-Bactrian kingdom article for some time now, and upon which a map has been fabricated.

• "Following the departure of the Seleucid army, the Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded. In the west, areas in north-eastern Iran may have been absorbed, possibly as far as into Parthia, whose ruler had been defeated by Antiochus the Great. These territories possibly are identical with the Bactrian satrapies of Tapuria and Traxiane."

• "Following his victory, Mithridates I gained Bactria's territory west of the Arius, the regions of Tapuria and Traxiane:"

Apparantly, Strabo stated the second statement, but I can't find any reference or any confirmation by any contemporary scholar in the library. Furthermore, more importantly, this hypothesing by Strabo has been further added to statement 1, which I added here too. "May have been absorbed". Perhaps you could check something alike these lines in JSTOR and whether its really verifiable whether the Graeco-Bactrians really got the regions of Tapuria and Traxiane in their territory? If it aint verifiable, which I suspect, and only mentioned by Strabo, I will ask people to create an actual good map. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this, this sentence;

• ""Following his victory, Mithridates I gained Bactria's territory west of the Arius, the regions of Tapuria and Traxiane:"
  

is sourced by this. Yet when I read the source, it makes no mention of Mithridates or even a date to which we could attribute it to him. The source does appear to be reliable, however.

The other sentence;

• "Following the departure of the Seleucid army, the Bactrian kingdom seems to have expanded. In the west, areas in north-eastern Iran may have been absorbed, possibly as far as into Parthia, whose ruler had been defeated by Antiochus the Great. These territories possibly are identical with the Bactrian satrapies of Tapuria and Traxiane."
  

gives no date nor indication of which ruler supposedly took these areas. I did find this:

• The Greeks in Bactria and India, by William Woodthorpe Tarn, p87-88, Euthydemus took those satrapies(Tapuria and Traxiane) from the Parthians, c.206BC. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear:, thanks much for your effort. Also, excuse me for my belated response. So you would agree with the uploader that the map is roughly correct? - LouisAragon (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving an issue at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:12.239.13.142 reported by User:Loriendrew. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ack! That message needs to not imply you are the one reported. Anyway, please add your comments about that IPs edits over there please. Thanks!--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:SpyButeo

Their edits certainly are odd. Edward321 (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible that I can ask one of the books of yours you have

I wanted one of the books that you have, that you used in some articles, by Professor Bosworth, is it possible. I need it to update and maybe change the Crimean Khans page and use multiple sources to cross-check. I would love to see his take on the list, and I'm interested in acquiring for further research in listing various Kings/Sultans/Amirs of other dynasties. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The book is called The New Islamic Dynasties, if you have it can you provide the list of the Crimean Khans, I noticed you using it, if I may ask. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Dawlat Birdi Giray b. Tash Temur ~1427
• 1427~Hajji Giray b. Ghiyath al-Din b. Tash Temur....under the Golden Horde Khans
• 1449~Hajji Giray I b. Ghiyath al-Din b. Tash Temur...independent ruler
• 1456~Haydar Giray b. Hajji I
• 1456~Hajji Giray I, second reign
• 1466~Nur Dawlat Giray b. Hajji I, first reign
• 1467~Mengli Giray b. Hajji I, first reign
• 1474~Nur Dawlat, second reign
• 1475~Mengli Giray, second reign
• 1476~Nur Dawlat Giray, third reign
• 1478~Mengli Giray, third reign
• 1514~Muhammad Giray I b. Mengli
• 1523~Ghazi Giray I b. Muhammad I
• 1524~Sa'adat Giray I b. Mengli
• 1532~Islam Giray I b. Muhammad I
• 1551~Sahib Giray I b. Mengli
• 1577~Muhammad Giray II b. Dawlat I
• 1584~Islam Giray II b. Dawlat I
• 1588~Ghazi Giray II b. Dawlat I, first reign
• 1596~Fath Giray I b. Dawlat I
• 1596~Ghazi Giray II, second reign
• 1608~Toqtamish Giray b. Ghazi II
• 1608~Salamat Giray I b. Dawlat I
• 1610~Muhammad Giray III b. Sa'adat b. Muhammad II, first reign
• 1610~Jani Beg Giray b. Mubarak b. Dawlat I, first reign
• 1623~Muhammad Giray III, second reign
• 1624~Jani Beg Giray, second reign
• 1624~Muhammad Giray III, third reign
• 1627~Jani Beg Giray, third reign
• 1635~'Inayat Giray b. Ghazi II
• 1637~Bahadur Giray I b. Salamat I
• 1641~Muhammad Giray IV b. Salamat I, Sofu, first reign
• 1644~Islam Giray III b. Salamat I
• 1654~Muhammad Giray IV, second reign
• 1666~'Adil Giray b. Dawlat b. Fath I
• 1671~Salim Giray I b. Bahaduur, first reign
• 1678~Murad Giray b. Mubarak b. Salamat I
• 1683~Hajji Giray II b. Qirim b. Salamat I
• 1684~Salim Giray I, second reign
• 1691~Sa'adat Giray II b. Qirim b. Salamat I
• 1692~Salim Giray I, third reign
• 1699~Dawlat Giray II b. Salim I, first reign
• 1702~Salim Giray I, fourth reign
• 1704~Ghazi Giray III b. Salim I
• 1707~Qaplan Giray I b. Salim I, first reign
• 1708~Dawlat Giray II, second reign
• 1713~Qaplan Giray I, second reign
• 1716~Dawlat Giray III b. 'Adil b. Salamat I
• 1717~Sa'adat Giray III b. Salim I
• 1724~Mengli Giray II b. Salim I, first reign
• 1730~Qaplan Giray I, third reign
• 1736~Fath Giray II b. Dawlat II
• 1737~Mengli Giray II, second reign
• 1740~Salamat Giray II b. Salim I
• 1743~Salim Giray II b. Qaplan I
• 1748~Arslan Giray b. Dawlat II, first reign
• 1756 Halim Giray b. Sa'adat III
• 1758~Qirim Giray b. Dawlat II, first reign
• 1764~Salim Giray III b. Fath II, first reign
• 1767~Arslan Giray, second reign
• 1767~Maqsud Giray b. Salamat II, first reign
• 1768~Qirim Giray, second reign
• 1769~Dawlat Giray IV b. Arslan, first reign
• 1769~Qaplan Giray II b. Salim II
• 1770~Salim Giray III, second reign
• 1771~Maqsud Giray, second reign
• 1772~Sahib Giray II b. Salim II
• 1775~Dawlat Giray IV, second reign
• 1777 Shahin Giray b. Ahmad b. Dawlat II, first reign
• 1782-3 Bahadur II Giray b. Ahmad b. Dawlat II

1783 Russian annexation of the Crimea

• 1783-7 Shahin Giray, second reign, as a Russian vassal

2. The Khans of the Tatars of Bujaq or Bessarabia, as Ottoman nominees

• 1787~Shahbaz Giray b. Arslan
• 1789-92 Bakht Giray
  

Per, The New Islamic Dynasties, C.E. Bosworth, Columbia University Press, 1996, 255-256. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Iranians vs Persians

Would love for you to see the Al-Biruni page, I believe historians are miscontructing his identity which is Iranian not Persian. And this isn't an anti-Persian comment, what is your take? The same thing for other Muslim Khwarizmian people that pre-date Turkic Migration. Which in my opinion caused this Turkic-Iranian edit wars. Or do you think saying Khwareziman is good, but it can be a mistake since the identity shifted. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe there was a discussion and consensus to assign him a specific language+ethnicity term. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting because the Khwarezmians don't have a page dedicated to their people but their region is enough, Iranica is a good base start for anyone interesting, it is clear that in the early 11th century they have been Turkicized. Biruni is of course before that. A good analogy for me is Sogdian people, you don't call them Persian. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well after Wiqi ignored what the Encyclopaedia of Islam states, I knew it was a waste of time to discuss anything with that editor. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I see it now. You only posted once in the discussion, but I understand what you meant. You have the first volume of the Encyclopedia? I have the third as we speak maybe I will check it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you speak Farsi ? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. English, Latin, French, German, and Spanish are my reading areas. I spoke a fair amount of German back in the '80s, but not as much now a days. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow excellent linguistical skills right there. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of the Bulge Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the collapse of the Serbian Army in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

List of wars involving the Ottoman Empire

Was wondering on how to edit this page to include the Italian War of 1542–46 which the Ottoman participated only in 1543 during Siege of Nice, and the Italian War of 1551–59, which the Ottoman participated in Siege of Tripoli in 1551, Battle of Ponza (1552) and Invasion of Corsica (1553). Ottomans only participated in the first 3 years and these where Mediterranean campaigns same with the 1543 Siege of Nice. How can I add into the list of wars article without making it seem like the Ottoman were fighting all battles. Or don't add them since they are Ottoman–Habsburg wars. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a viable possibility. You might start a discussion on the talk page of List of wars involving the Ottoman Empire and see if anyone else has an issue with it. If not, add them to the list. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to work on a mini-draft that might take a while, before establishing anything at a talk-page, I'm still confused about some some battles Ottoman participated in, your masterpiece of the List of battles involving the Ghaznavid Empire, it is just phenomenon, it's inspirational, the List of wars involving the Ottoman Empire is not on par to it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a masterpiece. It's just a list article. Although, I'm glad you find it inspirational. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I enjoy when things have a list, that is well organized, it puts in perspective what conflicts that certain Empires participated in. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Chateau de la Muette - Edit warring ???

Kansas Bear you know very well that the text you recently deleted had been part of this article since 2012, thus for three entire years until you decided to delete it. It describes events related to the Duchess of Berry while she was in residence at la Muette in 1717-1719. You might not like the facts, find them not proper to a royal princess, but they are part of the history of this place and of Berry's biography while she was the owner of the palace. An encyclopedia is not a dictionary and can thus allow for much longer articles, in this case not just about the place, but about the stories associated with it. If you look at[REDACTED] articles in general you'll see that their actual contents vary enormously from language to language and also very much depend on the specific interests and passions of contributors. I do not want to wage any edit warring but just feel entitled to some respect from other contributors/editors and in this case you didn't try to establish any dialogue but just deleted my text under a false pretext, pretending that La Muette was not mentioned in Saint-Simon's Memoirs, which is just false, if only because it's in La Muette that Berry died in July 1719 and Saint-Simon describes at lengths the circumstances of her death. You are the one bringing up the "edit warring" issue and mentioning supposed personal attacks against you. I don't want to wage any war for the sake of an 18th century princess ! Just deleting entirely a text which has been part of an article for 3 years doesn't show any desire to establish a dialogue or reach a consensus on some issue. It rather shows a total lack of respect for the work involved in the text you deleted. The fact is that you do not propose anything else but just erased it entirely. Is this your way of initiating a dialogue ? Erasing the text entirely under false pretexts (which keep changing - now you seem to claim that my text is a recent addition) is not a very peaceful way of editing.

Doing violence to the text of another contributor without establishing any form of courteous dialogue with him is a form of vandalism. 

It brings nothing to the article, just deletes information from it. It's certainly no way to dialogue with other contributors but rather a form of agression. A type of procedure you are fond of ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And yet, my discussion on the article talk page has been there since April 2015. Then you arrive, start edit warring and ignore the talk page completely. What are you afraid of? Saint-Simon's books appear to have been in three volumes, yet your referencing is so shoddy as to not indicate which volume, thus impeding verifiability. As on the article talk page, I outlined how the paragraph added only has about three sentences that directly pertain to Château de la Muette, you know the topic of the article! And yet you have chosen, as usual, to make this personal, instead of engaging in discussion on the article talk page.

What do these sentences have to do with Chateau de la Muette?

• "When welcoming the Russian emperor, the Duchess appeared "stout as a tower" (“puisssante comme une tour”). The royal princess had been nicknamed “Joufflotte” (“chubby”) because of her generous proportions. By the spring of 1717, her increasing corpulence had begun to cause her serious inconvenience so that she had given up hunting and sold her saddle-horses. But the prodigious quantities of food she devoured, washed away with wine and strong liquors was not the main cause for her distressing embonpoint."

Clearly these sentences have nothing to do with the Chateau and everything to do with Marie Louise Elisabeth d'Orléans.

Again, these sentences:

• "Which is why two months earlier, the princess, already quite heavy with child, had seemed "stout as a tower" in presence of Peter the Great. This clandestine pregnancy was really an open secret. Arouet (Voltaire) was arrested in May 1717 after telling to a police informer that the Regent's daughter had retired to La Muette to wait for the time of her delivery. After the death of her husband in 1714 and of the Sun King in 1715, the young princess was said to have lost all semblance of restrain in her quest for lustful pleasures. In January 1716, she had secretly borne a girl at her Luxembourg palace. Satirical songs had then lampooned the confined young widow and her amours."

Even the sentence mentioning Voltaire is simply repeating what was already said.

• " Early July, Madame de Berry, who by then kept fully secluded in her castle at La Muette, was being “inconvenienced”, “having grown so big” that it was feared for her life ! By the end of July, the Duchess had recovered but she had been in critical condition a few days earlier when giving birth."

These are the only sentences from that paragraph that even begin to include La Muette, you know the topic of the article.

Go right a head and report me for vandalism, I will enjoy having more eyes on that article and checking the off topic trivia that has been edit warred back in.

And remember EdJohnston's warning from 2013,

• "Result: Aerecinski is warned. If he reverts the article again to restore his material (before getting consensus) he may be blocked. It does appear that he is using the article on Philippe II as a WP:COATRACK to insert negative material about his daughter Marie Louise. The scandals about his daughter are already well-covered in our article on Marie Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans. Aerecinski has also been coatracking at Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine, our article on the grandmother of the unfortunate Marie Louise. To forestall more IP edits to insert Aerecinski's material I've semiprotected Philippe's article."

Which is what you are doing the the Chateau de la Muette article, coatracking. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

KANSAS what consensus or dialogue were you trying to initiate deleting my text ? Why do you have to adopt this agressive and contemptuous stance ? And right away start threatening me ? The comments you are making about coatracking could similarly made about many[REDACTED] articles which inevitably always involve some degree of redundancy, which is quite normal in any large encyclopedia. And as I wrote I limited my intervention to the time period during which the Duchesse de Berry was the owner of La Muette. If you have read Saint-Simon how comes you don't know his lengthy description of Berry's illness and agony at La Muette in June-July 1719 ! And I quote the pages correctly ! I never make up sources and references. And you are insulting me stating that my references are "shoddy" ! Do you think such an expression is normal is any exchange of emails trying to find some kind of consensus ? Or is consensus just another word for imposing your own views on other editors ? I am sorry I didn't see your April 2015 note otherwise I would have answered you right away. It's just casually that I looked at La Muette article yesterday and was surprised to find that you had deleted my text and annoyed by the dishonest comments you made. If you remember, our first exchange of emails some years ago were not antagonist at all and I answered you right away when you asked me for some specific references. I really don't see the point in keeping this warlike attitude which brings nothing positive and just makes writing on[REDACTED] a source of unecessary conflicts... Since you refer to the "Phlippe II" affair well you proceeded then pretty much the same way, deleting my contribution to the article for the same reason and also right away calling me the agressor when I tried to undo your deletion and also mobilizing your friends and taking advantage of my lack of familiarity with wiki rules about edit warring. And now likewise you are not acting fairly in this matter, make degrading remarks and threaten me... Aerecinski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Bear, writing takes time and effort even when you're a native speaker or have clear domains of special interest (like you and Turkey) and it's thus very frustrating to find not only a whole text deleted but then to find oneself engaged in such an unpleasant correspondence with some far away Wiki editor... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerecinski (talk • contribs) 19:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It is clear you have chosen to ignore the issues I have raised here and on the article talk page. Continued coatracking of articles will be reported. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tiridates I of Armenia

Heyyy,

Is there anything available on JSTOR about Tiridates I of Armenia being a Mithraic adherent? I couldn't find anything myself through google.books, namely. Plenty of stuff regarding him being Zoroastrian, but some PoV pushers (read; Steverci) were removing the former in favour of the latter as of currently which has been only mentioned in the body once by a early 20th century Belgian prof. If there's stuff to be found about him being a Mithraic priest and adhering to Mithraism, I'd be glad to add it to the article. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

He's searching so badly to get the block tag again. More incompetence . Nevertheless, at least lets try to make sure the quality of the articles he messes up don't drop. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, his sanction(s) should never have been lifted. I will check JSTOR and get back to you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

PS, KB, before I forget, more nonsense here as well from him on the same article. Now the Arsacids are ethnically Armenian and Greek as well suddenly, because of some intermarriage/concubines?... According that nonsense all dynasties on this entire place need a total rewrite, because they intermarried with X/Y/Z. Pff. This stuff is getting worrisome due to one unfortunately unblocked user. What do you think about this edit? Maybe we're better off sending our complaints to the dude who unblocked him? - LouisAragon (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My initial search of JSTOR yielded nothing. I will continue searching using different parameters. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Pontus has same problems. The lead/introduction is confusing. Was it a Greek, Persian or Greco-Persian state? It does not match with the other parts of article. Because only Greek culture is mentioned not Greek origin. --Zyma (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that article is just one of the many WP:JDL/POV tragedies of Misplaced Pages. It needs a complete rewrite. It was only Greco-Persian in culture, but entirely Persian in origin. My plan was to fix it myself in the near future together with HistoryofIran, but he ain't much active lately. I have it on my watchlist though, will try finding some Wikitime for it whenever I can. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear:, ok, thanks much. If you especially (as you have JSTOR) can't find anything, then we know what we can change regarding the article. Any further heads up regarding this is therefore much appreciated, might you have anything to add to it after your additional search. I believe Steverci has been hoaxing with this one on its directly related article as well. Yeah, right, a branch of the Parthians is suddenly ethnically Armenian and even part Greek because of some concubines? According that same nonsensical logic, one could basically remove all dynasty articles. My search regarding two of the sources added there so far didn't show any mentioning of them being ethnically (in the strictest sense of the word) either Armenian or Greek. Only mentioning of their Parthian origin/ethnicity/roots. KB; if you happen to have the time, could you please check these up as well? If it's not too much asked for. If it's another typical Steverci bogus, I will report him to his unblocker, so that they they'll take care of him once again accordingly. Could prob even easily do it now, but better we save/rack up more evidence of his perpetual incompetence. PS: I read your message on the Kingdom of Pontus article; I will start rewriting it drastically after I've fixed and dealt with several "things". Already collected some proper titles. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Good laugh:RE

What about this one? Haha. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury

Hi, Ages ago (July 2009) you added a nice table/family tree of "Ancestors of Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury" to Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury. I'm not quite sure how this is done and I've never used Template:Ahnentafel top. An "unreferenced" banner has been added to the section and I was wondering whether you would be able to add references to satisfy this request?— Rod 10:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. I do not have access to the Europaische Stammtafeln. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Book

Raised this at WP:ANI with a link to it. Doug Weller (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Good laugh (v.2)

"Can you point out explicitly some of the problematic edits and why they're a problem? ". () - LouisAragon (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, saw the disruptive editing on Safavid's article. Figured it was just a matter of time. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup. I was actually thinking about proposing the discretionary sanctions regarding Armenia/Azerbaijan to be applied to Iran as well, as they very often overlap, and in 90% of the cases when there's disruption, it's because of changes to a disruptive point of view regarding one of these three nations. In all the Safavid, Afsharid, Qajar pages (which is 400/500 years of history), it's usually typically anything Iranian being changed to Azerbaijani, for example. The same goes for when there's disruption made with an Armenian point of view where so-called everything before the turkifications in Azerbaijan, Iranian Azerbaijan, and Turkey, everything there was so-called "Armenian". And then I haven't even mentioned the same pov on articles like Nizami Ganjavi, Caucasian Albania, etc. That's what we get when we forcefully separate regions from each other that were always one throughout history. Oh well. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't there a level of protection on those article where you have to had 100 edits before editing it. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure there is an adequate answer to that question. But, I agree, the level of disruption is getting ridiculous. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I already contacted NeilN regarding our concerns. I will start writing a draft in these days for adding them to the Azerbaijan/Armenia discretionary sanctions, which is really (mostly) where all the overal disruption from all sides comes from and goes to. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Hey Kb. Feel free to leave a comment here. I believe it should be a point of interest for you as well. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thank you for improving the references and text of Theobald I of Navarre's involvement in the crusade of 1239. I have been unable to figure out Wiki's esoteric mechanics for adding citations. HeirOfSumer (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

title per commonname?

Hey, I will nominate this article for GA these days. I'm only at pains regarding the title. She's historically been referred to as Teresia Sampsonia as well as Teresa Sampsonia, and numerous articles have described that its a variation in spelling (which is covered in the article as well). Still however, I have to choose one of the two in the end. Google search gives roughly the same number of hits (~4900 for Teresia Sampsonia, ~5600 for Teresa Sampsonia). Any idea how to decide which one to choose? (sorry, I know its not much of a question you can give a definite answer to, but anyways). Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grey Wolves (organization), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Love it or leave it (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) 09:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (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 that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made. 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.