User talk:Kansas Bear

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020

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 Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020

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: Nick-D on 1945

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) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Kansas Bear/Battle of Save moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Kansas Bear/Battle of Save, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Oops. I forgot to add User in front of my name to create the sandbox version. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020

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 Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

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) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gratian

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gratian you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

request

I saw that you lately edited in the Zirid dynasty page. So I want to call you to join the active discussion in talk page and give us your opinion. We really need more opinions on the subject. And it would be very much appreciated if someone experienced with wiki to join. Sss2sss (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020

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 Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

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) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gratian

The article Gratian you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gratian for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Smh. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I have just realized that I misunderstood your last remark. I thought you had withdrawn the request for the review. Sorry for my misunderstanding. Borsoka (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

request

I am sorry if I am annoying you with my request. But this thing has got me very mad and nervous. I want to draw your attention to the same page of talk I invited you some days ago. (the one for the capital of the zirid dynasty). The main argument between me and [M.Bitton] is very weird I tried to push him to join the talk and defend his opinion but he never wanted or accepted to I found myself just linking to some sources with no one who hears me. Even when I tried to edit the page to just get him to talk. He would always just revert my eddit without giving any note in talk page.(I know that the edits I have done are considered as vandalism since there is no agreement in talk page. But as like that I have said to you that really got me mad and I don't really care if Iget a ban). I want to apologise for getting you into this. But really what should I do ? Sss2sss (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Philip III of France

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Philip III of France you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Philip III of France

The article Philip III of France you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Philip III of France for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philip III of France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clermont.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

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 & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello.

I would like to sort this out peacefully. Ulyvoei (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Go to the article talk page and get consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi. Would you please comment on this RSN topic? I need a clear answer for the future edits/reviews. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hephthalite–Sasanian War of 484

Hi User:Kansas Bear , Can you look at this page? [1] I think it's a reliable source, but it's been deleted. What do you think?--Shakshak31 (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It is a self-published source by a non-specialized author. So it is not a WP:RS. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Chandawar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aibak.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Imperial Brothers: Valentinian, Valens and the Disaster at Adrianople.

Hi Kansas Bear, you don't happen to possess Imperial Brothers: Valentinian, Valens and the Disaster at Adrianople.? I can view a reasonable amount of it on Google books, but unfortunately it doesn't show any page numbers, so its kinda useless. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Found it too! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Bagrevand (372)? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand x). I mainly need the source to expand Armenian-related articles, including the Bagravand one I guess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have the book. Most of my library is still in disarray, so finding a particular book is usually a bit of a search(hence the "Found it" part). I can tell you the battle of Barevand/Bagavan is listed on pages 102-104. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Khalaj people

Hi Kansas Bear, please look at the article of the Hephthalites (especially the origins part). Their origins are disputed. I deleted that part for that. --Shakshak31 (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Brill: Subutai

Hi Kansas Bear. Do you have access to this non-free source from Brill?[2] Google search/cache only shows this text "...that Subutai was Tuvan. However, as Rashiduddin notes elsewhere, the group to which Subutai belonged was “separate and distinct” from the forest people.25..." and I need the full text for reviewing this section Subutai#Early life. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Apparently not. And I checked Jstor and it is not listed there. Did you ask LouisAragon? --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

No. Is there any other way to access it? e.g. a list of Wikipedians who have Brill account. --Wario-Man (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: I recently obtained full, permanent access to most online databases (including most publications of Brill) through my university. That means no more WP:REX needed for things like the third edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam, amongst many others. @HistoryofIran: @Al Ameer son: @Attar-Aram syria: @Wikaviani: thought I'd let you know as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: Here's the relevant passage from the source you linked. Please let me know if you need more text from the same source:

"It also frequently appears in secondary literature that Subutai was of the Reindeer People, since there was a forest-dwelling group of people in the northwest of Mongolia who had the exonym of Uriyangqai, irrespective of whether they were Turkic or Mongolic speakers. Describing these people of the forest, Rashiduddin (Rashid al-Din) notes that they raised wild animals in the forest, travelled on sleds, and loathed the idea of living on the steppe and raising sheep or cattle like typical Mongolian nomads.24 Evidently this description of the Uriyangqai has been attached to Subutai in literature. Moreover, since the tribal name later became associated with the Tuvans, there is a persistent myth that Subutai was Tuvan. However, as Rashiduddin notes elsewhere, the group to which Subutai belonged was “separate and distinct” from the forest people.25 In fact, the clan to which he belonged was the Uriyangqat.26 The very slight difference in the form of the name, and the fact that there exists an obvious etymological connection, has led to much confusion for later scholars. However, the group to which Subutai belonged was situated among the Mongols in the Onon-Kherlen region of northeast Mongolia, closely affiliated with Chinggis Khan’s own tribal grouping, and had the practices of steppe nomads. The only detailed story of his youth, recounted in both his Yuan Shi biographies, is that Subutai and his brother rode to rescue their father from robbers while he was herding sheep. The entire narrative unfolds in a very traditionally Mongolian set of circumstances. Perhaps the sense of irony conjured by imagining that the Mongol Empire’s greatest general was a reindeer-herding outsider to steppe nomadic culture has a strong literary appeal to modern authors".

- LouisAragon (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, goodies...

Are we back to this again? Thanks for the revert, btw. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It would appear so I'm afraid.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject Newcomer and Historian of the Year awards now open

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020

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 looks at the war in Ukraine

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) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Opinion/Comment

Hi. You may be interested in this discussion. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your accusation against me, which resulted in a one-week suspension from editing on this platform. The thread is Banned for a week due to a baseless accusation that was unjustifiable. Thank you. — WikiNutt (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Season's Greetings
	Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and a beautiful and productive New Year! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Stay safe and healthy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

M.Bitton (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks! Stay safe and healthy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Kansas Bear, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Wario-Man (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you! Stay safe and healthy!--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Stay safe and healthy!--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !

---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Stay safe and healthy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Genghis Khan

I think the article has many problems regarding his names, titles, etc. Can you help? Thanks in advance. Beshogur (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It is out of my area of specialization. I would suggest contacting someone on Wikipedia that knows linguistics. Sorry. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Voting for "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" closing

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Kitab-i Diyarbakriyya

I don't have any written document about Kitab-i Diyarbakriyya. But there is a Turkish language article on the book in online-cyclopaedia Islam Ansiklopedisi. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Beshogur gave me the bad news. It is written in Persian. :(

I will keep on searching. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Re:

Hey. Good to hear from you as well. I just skimmed through the article and it looks as if it mainly deals with the origins of the Armenian Catholic community in Nakhichevan. It doesn't seem to discuss demographic changes that took place in the region during the early modern period. You may want to consult the works of Sebouh Aslanian (From the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean) and Edmund Herzig to see if they might have anything to say about the subject. Best, Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021

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 looks Australian artillery in World War I Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on no-win scenarios

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Russo-Turkish War 1676 1681 result

And your interpretation for the result of this war means nothing.

Rhoads Murphey "Ottoman Warfare 1500-1700" book is written; "In the decades preceding the Ottomans’ attempted siege of Vienna in 1683 Ottoman armies had successfully prosecuted single-front wars in Hungary (the sieges of Varad [Oradea] in 1660 and Uyvar [N. Zamky] in 1663), Crete (the siege of Candia [Heraklion] between 1667 and 1669], Poland (the siege of Kamanice [Kamanetz-Podolsk] in 1672 and Russia (the siege of Çehrin [Chyhyryn] in 1678)" page number 9. Karakeçi24 (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not interpreting anything. And the Russo-Turkish War 1676-1681 already has Ottoman victory(with Rhoads Murphey, Ottoman Warfare, 1500-1700 as a source) AND Indecisive. Both with reliable sources. So what is your problem?

• "Brian Davies, Warfare, State, and Society on the Black Sea Steppe, 1500-1700, page 170;"Furthermore, already from late 1677 Moscow's primary objective in the war had become the protection of Kiev and the Left Bank, and by this test the first Muscovite-Ottoman War could be said to have ended on terms advantageous to Moscow, terms won through the action of the Muscovite and Left Bank Ukrainian armies following the destruction of Chyhyryn. Victory was achieved in two ways."

If I were interpreting anything, I would say Davies is stating a Russian victory, yet oddly I have not added Russian victory. On page 172, Davies is referring to the siege of Chyhyryn and not the war itself as a whole.

FYI, continued edit warring can get you blocked. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

PS, I will not respond to personalized comments like this. And such comments can lead to a block. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Schmitt (2018)

Would you agree with this change?[3] Just to make sure I understood the source correctly. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Might be of use @HistoryofIran: @Qahramani44::

"It is important to note, however, that despite the unfounded claims of some Azeri historians, there was no united anti-Iranian movement, nor any regional, ethnic, or national identity, or plans for an independent state. The short-lived efforts of King Erekle II, Ebrahim Khan of Qarabagh, and Fath ʿAli Khan of Qobbeh to establish total hegemony over the South Caucasus all ended in failure. Such assertions have become more common among Azeri historians after 1989; for example, see, Dzh. M. Mustafaev, Severnye khanstva Azerbaidzhana i Rossiia (Baku, 1989) and E. Babaev, Iz istorii giandzhinskogo khanstva (Baku, 2003). In fact, after Stalin’s failure to annex Iranian Azarbayjan in 1946, Soviet historians not only proclaimed that the khanates were never part of Iran and were independent entities, but began (and have continued to do so after 1991) to refer to Iranian Azarbayjan as south Azerbaijan, which had been separated from north Azerbaijan, see V. Leviatov, Ocherki iz istorii Azerbaidzhana v XVIII veke (Baku, 1948). Such absurd notions are completely negated by Article III of the Golestan Treaty and Article I of the treaties between Russia and the khans of Qarabagh, Shakki and Shirvan; see Appendix 4."

-- Bournoutian, George (2020). "Georgia and the Khanates of South Caucasus in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century" in From the Kur to the Aras: A Military History of Russia’s Move into the South Caucasus and the First Russo-Iranian War, 1801-1813. Brill. p. 249 (note 4)

- LouisAragon (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sock farming and long-term abuse

Hi. I saw your SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karakeçi24. I think it's related to two other similar SPI cases:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071 (strong similarity)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smokva26 (targets similar topics (see my report) plus the other articles; e.g. take a look at revision history of Subutai)

In my opinion, this a non-stop organized nationalistic quest and WP:MEATPUPPET. It seems these users work together via social media and chat. Someone should take it to WP:AN or WP:ANI. Wario-Man ^talk 13:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of this situation. I will mention it to Oshwah. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Good. Please notify other admins who are familiar with the targeted topics/articles if you can. Cheers! Wario-Man ^talk 14:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

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: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

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) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021

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: Works on the Gallipoli Campaign, Battle of Perryville and US 1st Infantry Division

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Arjomand

Just checking. Do you think these additions were in line with the added material?[4]-[5] - LouisAragon (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Kansas Bear. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 19:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021

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 female computers, Nick-D on the Israeli Defence Forces

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) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Adelaide

	Article improvement
	Thank you! Miha (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You are most welcome! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Gilbert Reaney moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Gilbert Reaney, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for notifying me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021

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 Montgomery's doctrine and Nick-D on Mussolini's wars

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Safavid Georgia

Have you got any logical argument against my editions in this article? Those 3 users try to Persianise and Islamise the names of Georgian Kings. They WERE NOT Persians and Muslims, they were Georgians and Christians, one of them is the saint of Georgian Orthodox Church. All academic society knows them with their Georgian names. BTW Can you imagine Christianisation of the names of Muslim kings in Wikipedia, will it be right?Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you should self-revert as C.Fred suggests. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

So, if we had article in Wiki where instead of David II of Scotland was written Dawud Khan of Scotland, would it be normal and logical? Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

You do not listen. You had a 3rr warning on your talk page which, if you took the time to read it, explains everything. So all your "normal and logical" nonsense, means nothing. Do not post here again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Khwarazmian dynasty § Splitting proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Khwarazmian dynasty § Splitting proposal. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 06:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021

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 and Hawkeye7 look at intelligence gathering, doctrine and strategy

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

We are working on a Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları about Ottoman times female slavery with a special focus on the state of non-elite common women slavery in those times.

Please do have a look at Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları and help expand the draft with (East European) refs if you find topic interested in.

This request is being made to you since you seem to have supported various articles with suitable refs.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joan of Évreux, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles IV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021

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 RAAF aircraft, Hawkeye7 on mission command and nuclear secrecy

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) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Mohi

Greetings! I don't care much about McLynn as a reliable or unreliable source. The fact is that the source himself claims "several hundred losses" among the troops exclusively under the command of Batu, but he is only one of 6 Mongol leaders who participated in this battle. (In other articles you can see that each of the Mongolian leaders had their own army, so it cannot be assumed that he was the "general" of the entire Mongolian army in the battle). Therefore, I consider it wrong to insert McLynn's content into the column of the total losses of the Mongolian army? HernánCortés1518 (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• "I don't care much about McLynn as a reliable or unreliable source."

I do not care much for McLynn either. However, unless we get a consensus on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that McLynn is an unreliable source, it can and will be used.

• "The fact is that the source himself claims "several hundred losses""

Yet according to what I found in the McLynn source,"It is true that Batu found a few hundred fatalities at Mohi too many, but he had only his own blundering to blame."

What page did you find several hundred losses?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that isn't the competence of the noticeboard. WP: OR - editors is forbiden to interpret sourced statements in own way. McLynn did not explicitly state that the Mongols lost "several hundred" in this battle, but only referred to the losses in the army of Batu, one of the many Mongol leaders who fought in this particular battle. This misleading part was initialy inserted by a banned user that was in conflict with you. And yes “few” or “several” hundreds: it makes no difference, I didn't quote (these are synonyms) - it’s just wrong to insert into the article what the sources doesen't say. I think there is no need for "noticeboard consensus" about wiki rules? This "few hundred" thing just should be deleted from atricle. HernánCortés1518 (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but unless the noticeboard states that the McLynn source is unreliable, it has to stay. It would be this way with any source. My like or dislike of a source is immaterial. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable additions

Hi. Take a look at these recent changes[6], the citations look unreliable and the other changes seem like personal commentary. Wario-Man ^talk 08:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I can not find a copy to verify any of that information. The Ancient Turks book is older and should be checked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard concerning its reliability.

D. Ahsen Batur appears to be just a journalist. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

As you see, that new user reverted one of my 2020 reverts[7] and I got notified because of it. The revert is about some DNA studies. It's not my concern because it needs to be reviewed by the editors who are familiar with DNA and genetic studies. Currently I contribute to another WP project so I don't watch, edit, and patrol topics such as history, ethnic groups, and other related content anymore. I'm retired from editing those topics (personal reasons). Just wanted to notify you. @LouisAragon: Your thoughts? Wario-Man ^talk 17:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a sockpuppet. Their revert was of your revert back in October of 2020! They can take their concerns to the talk page. Would be a good idea to notify Beshogur, as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Does not look new to me too and it could be a SPI case; e.g. this blocked user and the other activities[8] since 14 June 2021. Also more odd stuff[9][10] by another user. Wario-Man ^talk 18:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

You should notify EdJohnston and make him aware of this nonsense. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021

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: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on 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) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021

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 Commonwealth armies and an Australian spy, Nick-D on the American Revolutionary War and RAAF mine laying Op-ed: RobDuch on United States coastal defenses

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar Bear!

	Barnstar Bear!
	Reviving an old classic. For lifting often impenetrable fogs so as to clear the skies, tirelessly and for countless years. Keep up the great work! Best wishes, El_C 20:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, El C! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Germiyanid talk page

can you take a look at the page again i added some resources under what you wrote. Burtigin (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Priscillianists

Hello,

Thank you for clarifying about the meaning of the Gallic Chronicle in describing the Priscillianists as Manichaeans. As an important primary source I feel it would be beneficial to mention what the Gallic Chronicle states on this event in the articles Treveri and Magnus Maximus. I am working on a suitable integration now with the source you mentioned. Do let me know if you want changes.

Vaurnheart (talk) 23:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest not using a primary source especially since that is a blog. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I could instead provide the wikisource for the Gallic Chronicle directly, if I can find an English translation. Vaurnheart (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should avoid primary source(s) for this information and try to find secondary source(s) for it instead. Especially since the Theodosius I article is a GA-level article. Speaking of which, what was this about? It would appear said source did not support your edit? And why did you restore said information with a questionable online tertiary source when you could use Lieu, Samuel (1992) Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China, page 113?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't read it from there as I don't have the book, but that looks like a better source to use. Vaurnheart (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

By p. 113 I can preview "An even more strictly worded edict against the Manichaeans was issued by Theodosius (31 March 381)". Does this continue and refer to the decree of 382 mentioned frequently in tertiary sources?

Manichaeism, Michel Tardieu, page 93, "On 8 May Theodosius I issues an edict imposing attainder upon Manichaeans and depriving them of the right to draw up a will. Renewed on 31 March 382 and applied to every "Manichaean" hiding behind the names Encratite, Saccophorus, and Hydroparataste." --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021

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 Australia and the UK in Iraq and Afghanistan Op-ed: Nick-D on writing about military procurement

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) 13:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Why?

Dear Bear, why did you revert me again? Wasn't my comment clear? I said that I'm restoring the long-standing stable version, and waiting for other editors to join the discussion regarding your changes. I'm literally following all the relevant guidelines such as WP:ONUS. Moreover, why are you harassing my talk and wrongly leaving 3rr notice when I wasn't even on my 3rd revert [11], [12]? Can you stop, please? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Afghan-Sikh Wars

Could you please go to the Afghan-Sikh Wars talk page to discuss your reverts? not replying is considered disruptive reverting, and if you don't reply I will take it up with an admin and revert it back to my changes that you removed solely for no reason by ignoring the reasons provided. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• " if you don't reply I will take it up with an admin and revert it back to my changes that you removed solely for no reason"

Do not threaten me! NOTIFY AN ADMIN NOW!--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

" However, explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is not considered a threat." [13] @Kansas Bear Noorullah21 (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I have asked questions multiple times on the article talk page which you have blatantly ignored. Then you arrive on my talk page and threaten me and call me a vandal. Now you can stay off my talk page. Continue edit warring at your own peril. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I apologize, I see that you have put in questions now, I have not seen those so I apologize. will answer there. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear You have been responded toward. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

No need to ping me on my talk page. I have responded. The only issue is Mehta, and properly referencing the gov.pk source(page number(s), title, author). --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Reminder: Discussion invitation Afghan-Sikh Wars

Please come to discuss at the page. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Missing cite in Olivier, Count of Penthièvre

The article cites "Bulletin de la Société 1986" but the bibliography lists the source as published in 1996. Can you please clarify which is correct? Also, please install a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•3 03:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for counsel/ assistance - user Snarcky1996 deleting entire sections of King Sihamoni's page

Hello Kansas Bear,

Im reaching out if you can please help provide a third party perspective on King Norodom Sihamoni's Wikipedia page, which is currently in the midst of editing warring instigated by user so called "Snarcky1996" and I understand this is not the first instance, he has engaged in this kind of behavior as per your comment on his page.

Are you able to please help intervene, amend, edit, improve, provide counsel, where applicable, provide a third party perspective, as Im only a relative cadet so to speak, compared to yourself and the likes of more experienced users on Wikipedia. I have also asked experienced user, Celia Homeford to help advise/ provide counsel as well, but user Snarcky1996, is ignoring all recommendations to add on/ amend, rather than just purely deleting every single section he disagrees. You would see in the edit summary/ talk page, he is insinuating character attacks because he simply disagrees.

The page has since been protected, but I fear once the protection period ends, aforementioned user, may engage with wholesale deletion, rather than amending/ adding on/ researching / citing with sources and hence editing warring may resume.

Many thanks heaps.

Kind Regards, Contibutorthewise

This appears to be outside my area of "so-called" expertise. Might I suggest Page Protection? Have you started a discussion on the talk page? If said editor continues to edit war, you may have to contact an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Kansas Bear,

Thanks heaps for the reply. The page is currently protected by only for a limited time at the moment as a result of the edit war. I may have to consider your recommendation in due course if that happens re asking for admin help. The 'Talk page' is currently ongoing, and I was subjected to name calling by the said editor. Hopefully, rather than an edit war, consensus can be reached in the near future.

Kind Regards, Contributorthrwise

Quote

Hey KB, hope you're doing well. I noticed the recent quote in your user page. May I suggest one too? It's from Qur'an, [22:46]:

“It is not the eyes that are blind, but blind are the hearts”. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021

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 British conscription and German warship raiders

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) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. 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!

TagaworShah (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Valuable contributions

	Valuable contributions
	Thank you for bringing many medieval people back by making valuable work! Iʻm so thankful youʻre improving the articles and I hope youʻll continue! Miha (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yakub İ of Germiyan

I don't know if you remember I told you my problem about the Germiyanid principality.

The sources shown that the founder Yakup is a Kurdish-Turkish hybrid are not first-hand sources. just like in Germiyanid page. Burtigin (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Well the sources presented check out. As for "first-hand sources", Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. So, if those sources presented are deemed reliable then there is little anyone can do about it.

I did find this journal;

• Kafadar, Cemal (2007). "A Rome of One's Own: Reflections on Cultural Geography and Identity in the Lands of Rum". Muqarnas. 24. Brill: 22.

Which states, "Ibn Battuta's reference to Yezid as the ancestor of the Sons of Germiyan, even if it is related by the traveler as a disparaging remark by their resentful neighbors, has thus led some modern scholars to deem the Germiyanids Kurds and occasioned a rebuttal by a Turkish historian: see Mustafa Cretin Varhk, Germiyanogullan Tarihi: 1300-1429 (Ankara, 1974). The actual circumstances may indeed have been so complex as not to allow for a designation of some of those tribal confederations with a straightforward ethnic marker comfortably recognized by modern readers." --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"Origin of Germiyanid, Mateos from Urfa, Malatya

According to his statement that a region was named “Germiyan” It is said that it dates back to Malatya and thus to the Danishmenids. has been removed. The period when Mateos lived, the gates of Anatolia Coinciding with the period when it first opened to Turks, Danishmen increases the importance of its connections with central Malatya. It is believed that the Germiyans were from the Afshar tribe of the Oghuzes. In the face of such views, Z. V. Togan, in Kütahya, "aşiret-i Harezm" Kangli-Kipchak the service of the people of Horezm due to his record "harezm" He claimed that they might be from the chak group." Page 8

https://www.google.com/url?

sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/317221&ved=2ahUKEwjG7pD-4PzyAhXK_7sIHSEUC-EQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2lUmMPBf6dvkrzQ7i9ocjj

I already wrote before The person referred to here with Yazid is the Arab caliph Yazid bin Muawiya himself.

there is no reference to any Kurdish (or even Iranian) group. Burtigin (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess you should post a concern on the article talk page and try to gain consensus.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course, if there is someone who might be interested in the page, I would like to reach him as well. Burtigin (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you know who this is?

[14] - AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably the same person(using a different IP) that posted personal attacks on Talk:Battle of Fornovo. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Council of Pisa (1135), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antipope Victor IV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021

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 Canadian junior officers in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lodi dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

io, Saturnalia!

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

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 Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

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) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Battle of Qatwan played a very large role on the decline of Seljuk empire

In the Battle of Qatwan. The Seljuqs were decisively defeated, which signalled the beginning of the end of the Great Seljuk Empire. More than anything, the decline of the Seljuks is when Khitais defeated them. Vamlos (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I know, I wrote the article. However, you added information, without a source, and without an edit summary. AND,

• "The Seljuk empire began to decline in the 1140s after being defeated by the Khitans in Battle of Qatwan..."

Is not completely correct, since it ignores Sanjar's capture and the continued Ghuzz incursions. Also, I would suggest bringing sources you have actually read and not something you have read in another article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. But the article of Seljuk empire, including other multiple articles all mentions Seljuks lost it's dominance after the losing their war in Qatwan to Khitans. The Kara-Khanid who were former vassals of Seljuks became vassals to Khitans. So I see nothing wrong mentioning their decline in 1140's were done by Khitans.

" By Steppe, Desert, and Ocean: The Birth of Eurasia - Page 395 Barry W. Cunliffe · 2015. FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 395

The Qara Khitans......"At Samarkand in 1141 they confronted and defeated the Seljuk armies. The Karakhanids now became vassals of the Kara Khitans"

The Seljuks not only lost the war but also lost it's it's territory and former vassals. Which is obviously a huge blow to Seljuks. Only after that did the Khwarezm empire took over the Seljuks.Vamlos (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• "The Seljuks not only lost the war but also lost it's it's territory and former vassals. Which is obviously a huge blow to Seljuks. Only after that did the Khwarezm empire took over the Seljuks."

The Seljuk's lost territory to the Khitan's which was one of a number of factors contributing to its decline.

• "MalikShah also died in the same year[1092], not long after his Persian vizier. His death marked the end of stability in the Seljuq Empire and the beginning of a gradual decline." --Iran's Regional Relations: A History from Antiquity to the Islamic Republic, Seyed Mohammad Houshisadat.
• "Sultan Sanjar stayed in power in eastern Iran, ruling there from 1097 and serving as supreme sultan from 1118 to 1157. But his death ushered in the full decline of the Seljuq state in Iran." --Seljuqs and Their Successors: Art, Culture and History, Sheila R. Canby, page 11.
• "The circumstance which led to the gradual decline and ultimate downfall of the Saljuqid empire were numerous." -- The decline of the Saljuqid Empire, Mawlawi Fadil Sanaullah, page 1.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not claiming Khitans led to the full decline of the Seljuks but they definitely played the largest and most important in Seljuks decline in the 1140's. I just wanted to include Khitans as main factor of the beginning decline of Seljuks. Because they lose the war, lose Transoxania to Khitans, and had Kara-Khanids changed it's vassalage to the Khitans. You can't just say it one of the number of factor, it is the most important and major factor in 1140's leading to multiple factors of Seljuks decline in the future.

Source: A Companion to the History of the Middle East - Page 147 Youssef M. Choueiri · 2008

"Qara-Khitai subjugated the Qarakhânids and in 1141 annihilated a Seljuk army near Samarqand, seizing Transoxania."

Like all I want to edit in the top of the Seljuk empire is this (provided with sources) -----> Seljuk empire began to decline in the 1140s after losing in the battle of Qatwan to the Qara Khitai. Vamlos (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• "You can't just say it one of the number of factor, it is the most important and major factor in 1140's leading to multiple factors of Seljuks decline in the future."

And yet I have provided sources stating that the Seljuq Empire was in decline even prior to Qatwan.

• "Ibn al-Athir's bleak picture of the Seljuk Empire after Malikshah's death is replicated in much modern scholarship. The period is characterised as one of 'decline'."-- The Great Seljuk Empire, A.C.S. Peacock, page 72.

• "Seljuk empire began to decline in the 1140s after losing in the battle of Qatwan to the Qara Khitai."

The references and information I have presented clearly indicates otherwise. Ignoring this information is WP:TE. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You used a source that talks about Seljuk's ultimate decline and was due to multiple factors. But not a single source about the beginning of Seljuks decline was not mainly due to battle of Qatwan.

What event was more important than the battle of Qatwan that let to the beginning of decline of Seljuks in 1140's ( I repeat. The beginning of decline not the total decline ) ? Vamlos (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You have not presented any source(s) that proves your edit. I have presented multiple sources that states difference reasons for the decline, you are now ignoring what I have shown here.

• "What event was more important than the battle of Qatwan that let to the beginning of decline of Seljuks in 1140's"

I would suggest reading the information and references I have presented here. Judging from your continued comments, you have not read anything.

Your continued reliance on what you read from another article and how you decide to interpret it is WP:OR. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Restoration of my unbiased edits

I modified the Battle of Montgisard's muslim causalities and strenght because it appeared to be very biased, we know the muslim losses (they were approximately all annihilated) yet the wikipedia page says 'Unknown' (for obvious biased reasons as we saw the 'greatly exaggerated' comment on the strength section which is by the way not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Terrail de Bayard (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The information is referenced to a reliable source. Your opinion of the information presented is irrelevant. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Qara qoyunlu and Turkification of Azerbaijan

"Qaraqoyunlu are the drivers of these political migration movements from Anatolia to Iran and at the same time the first member of a new settlement movement that will ensure the restoration of Turkmen rule in Iran and, in fact, the Turkification of Azerbaijan. As it is understood from these words, the Turkish they spoke was the Oghuz or Turkmen language, which is called Azerbaijani today. It is understood that Jahanshah, one of the rulers of Qaraqoyunlu, was one of the representatives of Azerbaijani literature.

I want to add this, do you mind?

1.Source : Faruk Sümer, «Kara Koyunlular», I cilt, səh. VIII 2 source : Faruk Sümer, "Akkoyunlular", İslam Ansiklopedisi, I, s.251-271.

3source:https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/karakoyunlular Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Why not ask @Beshogur:, who was involved in the discussion and can read Turkish? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

ok i will ask him Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Question..

Hey KB, hope you're doing well. Wanted to ask what do you think of this edit? Seems like a lot of partisan sources were added. Maybe I'm wrong, would like to hear your opinion. Take care, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Some researchers associate the Oghuz dialect of Qara qoyunlu with the Azerbaijani language. For example, Faruk Shumer noted that the Eastern Oghuz dialect of Qara Qoyunlu is called the Azerbaijani language today, while Muhsin Behramnejad noted that he called the Azerbaijani language a legacy inherited from the Kara-Qoyunlu Turkoman tribes. Sultan Qara qoyunlu 1435-1467 Jahanshah is a generally recognized representative of Azerbaijani poetry.

I would like to add the above text to the bottom of the Qaraqoyunlu Page, is there a problem?

Sources : Faruk Sümer, «Kara Koyunlular», I cilt, p. VIII. ISBN : 9751604354, 9789751604354

M.Behrâmnejâd, «Karakoyunlular, Akkoyunlular: İran ve Anadolu'da Türkmen Hanedanları», p. 14. ISBN: 6057635280, 9786057635280 Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Book 1 : https://books.google.az/books?id=X0zRAAAAMAAJ&dq=editions:ISBN9751604354 Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Book 2 : https://books.google.az/books?id=xzacygEACAAJ&dq=Karakoyunlular,+Akkoyunlular:+%C4%B0ran+ve+Anadolu%27da+T%C3%BCrkmen+Hanedanlar%C4%B1&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC) Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Odd how all your sources/information/articles are not supported by any sources in Western academia. That is why articles should be written using third party(ie. neutral) sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Faruk Sümer is a historian from Turkey. There are many who use his sources in the articles of the Qaraqoyunlu state anyway. Muhsin Bahramnejad is Iranian, I think. Do you have a problem with sharing? Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Was a short answer enough? Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Faruk Sümer is a historian from Turkey. There are many who use his sources in the articles of the Qaraqoyunlu state anyway. Muhsin Bahramnejad is Iranian, I think."

I do not care what the ethnicity is of an author. The books you linked are both non-viewable thus fail WP:V. Odd that you can not find any viewable third party sources.

• " Do you have a problem with sharing?"

Since you asked.

My problem is with certain editors that think they can bring anything(government websites, personal websites, blogs, personal opinions, et.al.) to write what they want an article to state, especially when third party academic published sources state something else.

My problem is with editors that drag another editor's ethnicity(believed, suspected, stated) into an issue, instead of arguing the facts/sources/issues of the matter.

My problem is with certain editors that think other editors are just like them, editing to promote a specific ethnicity, nation, race.

My problem is with certain editors that know nothing of the history of a region they are editing, instead simply adding what they have been told(either in school or by their government).

Where do you think you fall?

• "Was a short answer enough?"

The day you stop seeing other editors as enemies, will be the first step towards opening your mind. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Qaliba, you misunderstood me. My English is not good. I may have typos. I apologize if I said something to offend you. Could you just give a short answer, I wanted to write, I wrote it wrong. Aydın memmedov2000 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022

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 Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

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) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Numbers

Mr. Kansas Bear - on the article Battle of Amritsar, same reliable source that provided 5000 numbers of Sikhs, same page number 36 also provides the number of Afghan/Mughal soldiers to be 20000. Exact quote "Baba Deep Singh, along with an army of 5000 volunteers set off and began marching towards Amritsar. The Faujdar of Amritsar tried to stop the march with a force of 20,000 soldiers." This is also backed by other sources such as by Professor and historical researcher Hugh Barlow of Southern Illinois University where he says in his book, "Five hundred Sikhs did so, and en route to Amritsar their number swelled to five thousand. Five miles from the temple, an army of twenty thousand Afghan soldiers lay in wait for them." One more source by Historical Researcher and professor R.K. Pruthi, who is also a member of the national and international academic organisations, states that "Along the way to Amritsar 5000 Sikhs joined Baba Deep Singh. On the outskirts of Amritsar the heavily outnumbered Sikhs fought two fierce battle against a force of 20000."

So I was thinking of adding 20,000 in the infobox for Strength 2. MehmoodS (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If the number of troops is referenced then that is fine. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the update with citations. Watching Chiefs vs Bengals. Overtime... Its a crazy match. MehmoodS (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I am glad the Chiefs lost. :-) --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Narela

Can you assist me in looking at this page? This article was created by an indefinitely blocked user so I can't communicate with him about the issues with the article. Based on the citations provided, they contradict with the information such as the details and the result of the battle. One historian Pradeep Barua [15] states that Marathas were defeated by Afghans at Narela and other historian J.L. Mehta [16] states that though Marathas had initial victory in the day, they later lost at night, after surprise attack from Rohilla Afghan forces of Najib-ud-daula.
So the result should be Afghan victory right? or disputed? Also there is no mention of any exact number such as 5,000 Afghans or even the casualties. What do you think? I was going to fix the problems but thought to get a second set of eyes to look at first. MehmoodS (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say, from a quick look at the sources in the article, that the result of the battle is disputed. The battle that occurs afterwards involving a Mughal force is a completely different conflict and should be treated as such. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

right! If you would like, you can fix the article, might need new section for result of the battle as well. Or I can work on it once I get time after shoveling snow from my driveway. MehmoodS (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you think?

I think this is the sock account of Aydın memmedov2000. New account shortly after master was blocked, edits in the same pages, asks questions about Qara Qoyunlu to same editor with same title [17], [18]. You have more experience, so thought to ask for your opinion. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Edigna

Hi, Kansas Bear. I was away for a while. I would have shared your suspicion upon first seeing the edits, but the topic looks definitely legitimate. Surtsicna (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Good to see you back. Stay safe and healthy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Trying to help a bit

I saw the 500/30 list you are making and thought I could help a bit, some useful additions in my opinion (I'll add more if I find any):

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClassicYoghurt, an Sockmaster that shows up every one in a while
• ADA campaigning, with a familiar editor helping the campaign
• an older campaigning post. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Comentários de uma criança brasileira

3° guerra mundial 45.173.116.136 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"Why is it that foolishness repeats itself with such monotonous precision?" --Leto II, God Emperor of Dune. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022

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 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

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) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Disagreement over wording

Hi, thanks for your edits/cleaning up of the Battle of Anandpur page firstly. Can you please look at this [19], the user is insisting on wording the sentence this way - "lost 2000 men in killed and wounded" over my " lost 2000 men that were killed or wounded". Granted, the source provided does say the former, however I think it's likely that it was just a typo or error in translation and the latter version makes more sense (at least to me). Please provide your opinion as I do not wish to edit war over a small issue. Thanks Kamhiri (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on title change

Mr.Kansas Bear - Hope you have recovered by now after the super bowl loss :) Better luck this year! I was looking at this article Battle of Anandpur (1704) and was wondering if the title could be changed to Second Battle of Anandpur (1704), because certainly same year there was a previous battle according to the source of Tony Jacques where he too mentioned (1st) and (2nd) on page 49. Because I believe this is causing confusion among editors leading to disruptions. By changing the title, hopefully it would be more clear. What do you think? I think Mr.Slatersteven can help with this change. MehmoodS (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not a KC Chiefs fan. I am a Chicago Bears fan. Hence the name, Kansas Bear.

The problem would be having a first battle of Anandpur occurring in 1700, then a "second" showing up in 1704. On the template I chose the option of numbering all battles of Anandpur. However, if you(or I) want to change the two 1704 battles to 1st and 2nd AND change the 1700 first battle of anandpur to simply "battle of Anandpur (1700)", then I see no problem. Your thoughts?--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Kansas Bear I saw the change you made to the template, and its absolutely fine. But would it be possible to change the title on the article as well to include Second? Like Second Battle of Anandpur (1704). MehmoodS (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Dewair (1606) and sortkeys

Hello. Would you please take the time in re-reviewing this edit of mine I made today? You have reverted it here without specifically addressing my change and as part of a larger revert. Not a huge issue, but it is the second time it it has happened on this page: my edit here in Fefruary and two days later your revert here. So I'm wondering if either in both cases, my edits were unintended victims of bad timing and friendly fire, or if there is actually something specific about these sortkeys you disagree.

If this is a case of conflating sorting key syntax with piped-link syntax, (and this not uncommon) then please see Help:Category#Sorting category pages. Thanks for your time. --DB1729 (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed.

In February an IP changed referenced information and I reverted to a previous version, which removed your category edit.

The latest was in response to another IP changing referenced information and I reverted to a previous version, which removed your category edit.

I do find it odd that you did not notice either change by either IP, both which removed referenced information. Either way, the issue had been fixed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, guilty as charged on my part. The first edit of mine last month was part of large effort to sort "Battle of..." type pages. I probably sorted over a thousand at least. I think I've seen this referred to as drive-by-editing. None of the pages are on my watchlist, nor did I check any content or recent changes. (Note: when I do notice something obvious, I do fix it of course:-) I realize this style of editing can hide problematic changes, but editors running AWB, bots, and vandalism itself and the associated reverts, all hide bad edits from watchlists. Not that it justifies anything, and your point is taken. Today, I just didn't notice anything but for my distraction of being reverted. Clearly I should have looked more closely at the history in that case, so my bad. DB1729 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Maratha-Mysore War (1682)

Mr.Kansas Bear, Need second set of eyes. Looks like this page has been consistently disrupted since 11:58, 22 August 2021 [20]. Originally the page was created on 08:00, 16 June 2021‎ with result of the war as Maratha victory but since 22 August 2021, an IP altered the result and some information (unsourced ofcourse). Then it proceeded with further disruptions with more IPs and in particular a new account Amruth7676. So I am going to revert the lead paragraph to last stable version of 18:54, 17 January 2022 by the original author Charvak157. I think I have figured out valid changes but if you have time, please take a look as well because there have been so many disruptions on this page that its little tedious to follow. I will keep this page on my watch list.MehmoodS (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The source for Martha victory, (Joshi, Pandit Shankar. Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, 1657-1689 AD. New Delhi: S. Chand, 1980), has no page number(s) and is unverifiable from my area. What would be best for that article is to methodically use reliable sources to write the article.

As it stands right now, only two sources have page numbers. The rest are complete guess work as to what page and if even the information they reference is correct.

The Muddhachari(1967) actually states this about the 1682 war.

• "First, Sambhaji the son of Shivaji invaded Mysore in 1682 and perpetrated horrible cruelties. Even though he was bought off by paying tribute, his interference in Mysore politics was a constant anxiety to Chikkadevaraja. The Jesuit letter of 1682 describes the precarious position of Chikkadevaraja, "The power of the king of Mysore begins to grow weak because, violently attacked in his own dominions by the troops of Sambogi, he cannot sustain and reinforce the armies he had sent to those countries. The far-reaching consequence of this Maratha war was that Chikkadevaraja was driven to make friendhsip with Aurangzeb. Secondly, there were no powerful chieftains in the Karnataka to whom Chikkadevaraja could look as reliable allies in case of necessity against the Marathas. Basappa Nayak of Ikkeri in Shimoga District was the ally of the Marathas and as such he could not be expected to be the friend of Mysore Raja. Muthuvirappa Nayak of Madura was a weak ruler. More than that he was an ally of the Marathas. Harji Mahadik, a Maratha general of Sambhaji, was still pursuing the people of Mysore from their important strongholds in Madura. Ekoji was also up in arms against Mysore. Under these circumstances Chikkadevaraja was left with no other alternative but to win the support of Aurangzeb." --The Mysore-Mughal Relations (1686-87), B. Muddacharia, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 29, PART I (1967), 168-169.

The other source with page numbers, the Bertrand source, is from 1847 written by a Jesuit priest.

The Maratha-Mysore War (1682) article has more problems than some IP disrupting it.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

I just wanted to let you know that I reverted most of the disruptive IP's edits. Judging by their edits, which are either unsourced or misrepresent what the sources say, and especially these two edit summaries[21][22], it's fair to assume that they are not here to build an encyclopedia and would probably need reporting if they continue. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. My sincerest thanks, M. Bitton. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022

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 Hitler as a military leader

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) 09:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Margaret of Valois-Angoulême

Hi, I saw that you reverted my edit on the article for Margaret of Valois-Angoulême. I fixed the infobox to say that "Queen consort of Navarre" is just a royal title, not a French royal title. At this point in history, the crown of Navarre was not associated with the French crown; the last time France and Navarre shared a monarch was Charles IV in 1328. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlimitedlead (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I am unconvinced by your argument. I think we should get the opinions of some other editors. @Sovietblobfish:, @Eric:,@Surtsicna:, @Srnec:, @M. Armando:,@BeatrixBelibaste:, @Rjensen:

Those of you pinged(and any talk page stalkers), the question, "Is the title "Queen consort of Navarre", a French royal title?". Which also begs the question, is the title, "King of Navarre" a French royal title? My sincerest thanks for your responses. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Neither title is a "French" title prior to 1620, when Louis XIII incorporated the kingdom of Navarre (what was left of it) into France. For a reference, see A. D. Lublinskaya, French Absolutism: The Crucial Phase, 1620–1629 (Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 171–173. On another note, why was this page moved from Marguerite de Navarre? —Srnec (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The crown of Navarre isn't my historical specialty, but Smec's position seems logical. Sovietblobfish (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I wish I could offer some perspective, but this is beyond my ken. I looked at our articles for Queen consort and fr:Consort (monarchie), but didn't see anything that shed light on the question. I don't have a good handle on what constitutes an "official" royal title, nor on how such titles were recognized historically. Eric ^talk 10:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Ali-Shir Nava'i

Why are you changing the information that I have added by giving the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.112.8 (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you know how to read? I explained why in my edit summaries. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

You have to be descriptive, I don't understand what you mean, stop revisionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.112.8 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you refrain from accusations since you clearly do not understand English. Read MOS:BIO. The next accusation will get you banned from my talk page and reported. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Suleiman's suicide & Battle of Ain Salm

Hi Kansas Bear, I do not understand why you refrain from writing that Suleiman commited suicide in the Ain Salm and Suleiman article. I am sorry if this is hurting your feelings, but I do not see a way around to potrait his death as a suicide. If you read the two primary sources quoted by me (Anna Komnena: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/AnnaComnena-Alexiad06.asp paragraph IX and Ibn al-Athir https://books.google.es/books?hl=es&id=BAN6ONlDkgIC&dq=The+Annals+of+the+Saljuq+Turks&q=Sulayman#v=snippet&q=artuq&f=false), you will see that both accept generally that he was killed and also hint to that this was widely known. Anna writes first (in paragaph XI) that he killed himself and then in the following that this became widely known throughtout Asia (obviously not continent that we understand nowadays). On the other hand, Ibn al-Athir first states that he was killed and then says that there is also one report that suggests he was killed in battle. al-Athir does not simply write "one report says this, another says the other" but it is clear from how he phrases it that this is one report from many. Also, I do not understand how citing modern scholars help look past primary sources (which is also why I would not pay too much attention to Basan). I did not have a look at these books but are they quoting any other primary sources? Which ones would that be? Finally, why did you remove Artuk beg from the command section in the battle info box for the battle of Ain Salm? Al-Athir mentions him as a successful general and he is mentioned even more prominently in fighting Suleiman then Tutush ("he fought heroically and encouraged the Arabs in battle"). Looking forward to your answer.

Sorry, I am not sure if I am coming of as too harsh. No offense meant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PontiffSulivahn (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022

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 military logistics and rebuilding Nagasaki

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) 22:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022

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 a World War II summit and the American space program

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

First Anglo-Maratha War

Can you take a look and review this page? The citations prove that the end result was the treaty and there was no particular winner or loser from the war. Like here is the quote from Richard Ernest Dupuy, Gay M. Hammerman, Grace P. Hayes's book "The American Revolution, a global war", page 247 states that "Hastings promptly repudiated the Treaty of Wadgaon and sent troops from Calcutta all the way across central India to strengthen the Bombay forces. One by one they captured Maratha cities. In May 1782 a new treaty was signed with the Marathas, the Treaty of Salbai. Although it merely restored the status quo ante bellum, this treaty gave the British twenty years of peace with the Marathas and permitted them to concentrate their efforts against the French and the forces of Mysore." Even historian James C. Bradford from book International Encyclopedia of Military History states on page 867, "The company renounced the first draft of the treaty of Wadgaon and kept of fighting until 1782, and, despite its capture of the fortress of Gwalior (1780), the only concession that the British could win was the cession of Salsette Island, which improved the security of Bombay."

But this other user on the page keeps reverting the changes by claiming it to be Maratha victory even when I mentioned in description to discuss the changes. And he uses the above same sources but alters the quotes. He even included a citation by author Y.G Bhave who is not an academicians historian and fails reliability. Can you review the article and changes please? MehmoodS (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You should try and get all the facts on the talk page and start a discussion, to avoid edit warring. I will do some digging when I get home from work later today. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added all citations and quotes in article's talk page to explain that the result was a treaty with no particular winner or loser. Including this additional quote as well: M S Narvane in book "Battles of the Honourable East India Company: Making of the Raj", page 63 quotes that "Mudhoji was known to have taken bribe from Hastings and would not join a war. Mahadji, himself was anxious that his forces were not divided and separated, which war both in Malwa and in the Deccan would have entailed. Moreover, both Mahadji and Nana faced acute financial distress. Under these circumstances, peace at the most favorable terms was the only course left open. After prolonged negotiations a treaty was signed between Mahadji and Anderson on 17th May, 1782. It was known as the Treaty of Salbai, after a small village of the same name where Mahadji was in camp." M. S. Narvane further quotes that, "The main clauses of the treaty were as follows: All territories captured by the Company would be returned, including Bassein but excluding Salsette and some small islands near Bombay. These would remain with the British. Territories in Gujarat would be returned to the Peshwa and Gaikwad, Bhadoch being given to Mahadji for services rendered. Raghoba was to be handed over to the Marathas. He would spend the remainder of his life at a secluded spot in Maharashtra on a pension of Rs. 25,000 per month. Thus ended the First Anglo-Maratha war. Politically the Company was a slight gainer. They retained Salsette whereas the Marathas got back only what they had lost earlier. The main gain from the Maratha point of view was the elimination of the threat posed by Raghoba." Raghoba is Raghunath Rao. All this information is in the talk page as well. 13:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Unbelievable that my above changes, citations and quotes were reverted as I have been told that "You are not allowed to use large quotations in "quote=" parameter. It should not exceed more than 25 words in general." Is that right? If that is the case, a notification would have been reasonable so that I could have just shortened the quote. Anyways when you get chance later in the day, please take a look. MehmoodS (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry MehmoodS. The latest interrogation has convince me that I am not needed here. I wish you well in your editing. Take care. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022

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 and Nick-D look at four recent works

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) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS?

• Dabashi, Hamid (2015). Persophilia: Persian Culture on the Global Scene. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674504691.

Do you think this source is reliable, and, specifically, can it be used in the Legacy section of the Battle of Thermopylae? Dabashi has made remarks about the actual battle itself, as well as its "ahistorical glorification" in Western thought and its usage in the "colonial" mindset. Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI

Have you seen this? Ignoring all discussions on Talk:Turkic history. Seems he wants to replace the whole article with his version. --Mann Mann (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I saw. I also saw where they called C.E. Bosworth an "Iranian academic". Besides, we already have a Turkic peoples article, which is balanced and better written. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Kansas, I have accidentally added the reference to the end of the paragraph instead of the first sentence. Editors could make mistakes, nobody is perfect writer. You should assume good faith and warn people at talk page of the related article or userspace to support the encyclopedia writing if you see a mistaken information. BerkBerk68^talk 22:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• "warn people at talk page of the related article or userspace"

After your snide remark concerning wisdom, I told you here:"Calling an academic "Iranian" when in fact they are not could be construed as disruptive POV editing. Just to let you know, since you are so keen on wisdom this applies to even deceased academics".

So you were given a "good-faith" warning without it even being on your talk page, unlike the other numerous warnings you have had.

• "I have accidentally added the reference to the end of the paragraph instead of the first sentence."

Accident? You copied the information from the Ghaznavid article, then changed "Persian dynasty" to "Iranian dynasty" and then included the term "Iranian academics". The sentence you copied and modified is directly referenced by ~Spuler, B. (1970). "The Disintegration of the Caliphate in the East". In Holt, P.M.; Lambton, Ann K.S.; Lewis, Bernard (eds.). Cambridge History of Islam. Vol. IA: The Central islamic Lands from Pre-Islamic Times to the First World War. Cambridge University Press.~ Neither Spuler, Holt, Lambton, or Lewis are Iranian. Then you go to Encyclopaedia Iranica and cite Bosworth. So you accidentally changed Persian to Iranian, added Iranian academicians, and then used a source not associated with that paragraph? That is one hell of an "accident".

That edit, the talk page comment on Afsharid Iran, and the talk page comment on Seljuk Empire, are a clear indication to push a certain point of view and gives me, if not others, the impression you are here to push an anti-Iranian/Persian agenda.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope, I am not really working for an "Anti-Iranian" agenda, I am just a wikipedia contributor who is obsverving that Turks are being less represented in Turco-Iranian civilizations. Turkic political entities have always been influenced native bureaucracy or traditions, for example Ottomans were highly influenced by Byzantinians but their Turkic part is pretty much represented. But for example, what we see in Afsharids, their Turkic part is literally not being represented despite the empire is originated from the Turkic Afsharid tribe.

Ghaznavids were not a Persian dynasty at all, their origins were Turkic, and even the article itself doesn't call them Persian. Also topic is not even researchers from Cambridge History of Islam here.

I am too busy with many other issues right now. I will explain anything you ask later, if necessary. BerkBerk68^talk 14:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Nope, I am not really working for an "Anti-Iranian" agenda, I am just a wikipedia contributor who is obsverving that Turks are being less represented in Turco-Iranian civilizations."

Just exactly how do you measure that, your personal opinion? Excuse me if I do not believe what you are posting here. When "someone" ignores multiple origins covering numerous groups of people while presenting only one of those origins, I see POV pushing. While doing that, they even miss out on representing the actual "Turks".

Something here, is just not right.

• "Ghaznavids were not a Persian dynasty at all.."

You are side stepping the issue. You changed Persian to Iranian then stated Iranian academics called the Ghaznavid dynasty "Iranian". That is an outright lie. Bertrand Spuler states this in The Cambridge History of Islam, page 147, quoting Ferdowsi.

• "their origins were Turkic.."

If you are confused about Persianate, well, culturally, they were. If it were not for the Ghaznavids, the Seljuqs would not have created and enhanced Turko-Persian culture. And if you are so ill-informed as to not know about the effect of Turko-Persian culture, I would highly suggest reading a book. Hell, even on Turkish Wikipedia the Great Seljuk Empires translates to virtually the same thing in the Lead sentence, and yet English Wikipedia's version continues to be attacked.

• "for example Ottomans were highly influenced by Byzantinians..."

So? Nowhere near as much as the Persian language influenced the Ottoman Empire. See unlike your statement, I have multiple reliable sources for mine!

• "..... but their Turkic part is pretty much represented."

LOL. The Ottoman Empire lasted over 600 years. All you see is the lead sentence of this article. You think an empire's culture might change over time? Check out the Ottoman Empire's culture in the 1500s. The Ottomans used Persian until the end of the 16th century, heavily. This is documented fact. The only reason the Ottoman Empire is not called a Persianate in the Lead is because the empire last 600 years and its culture changed from a Persianate to using Ottoman Turkish.

• "Afsharids, their Turkic part is literally not being represented despite the empire is originated from the Turkic Afsharid tribe."

What should it say? Where should it state "Turkic"? Exactly, how was the Afsharid Empire Turkic? Government? Culture? Language? Religion? Origin is already mentioned(Turkoman Afshar tribes). The Lead of an article should summarize what the article states. Not simply POV push Turkic into the Lead sentence because you feel it is not being represented!

• "I am too busy with many other issues right now."

Then quit bothering me. Unfortunately, you appear to be someone unwilling to use reliable sources to write information into articles. Nearly everything you try to push into an article appears to be simply your opinion. In my opinion, admins should ban you from any Turkish, Turkic, Persian, or Iranian related articles. You need to learn to properly edit in other areas first. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Same story different tune

I don't want to replace the article, I want to support the article with my work on developing the encyclopedia. You could give your proposals at my talk page though. BerkBerk68^talk 21:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

No. On the article talk page there were 4 editors that disagreed with the way you had wrote the article. In response you ignored all of them and starting writing virtually the same article in your sandbox. So much for offering "proposals". --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, as I predicted it[23] plus removing tags.[24] --Mann Mann (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Heh, I mean it wasn't really hard to predict an editor is going to present a new version to the article & community when you already see it on his userspace. BerkBerk68^talk 14:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ghaznavids, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022

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 Falklands War artillery and Nick-D on the Battle of the Ruhr

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) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022

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 Falklands War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you improve these articles?

I just browsed entries on {{Huns}} (a navbox created by myself) and I think these articles need some improvements:

• Cadiseni: Needs review, copy-edit, and additional sources. The current revision is just based on two large quotes.
• White Huns: It shouldn be merged with Hephthalites in my opinion. What do you think about it?
• Xionites: The lead and section Origins and culture are confusing and need better rewording/summary. Actually someone should rewrite the whole article.

Take a look at them. They could be interesting for you. --Mann Mann (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It may be quite some time before I can do anything relevant in that particular area. You might drop Erminwin, Ermenrich, and HistoryofIran a note on their talk pages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

They are not urgent cases. Just wanted to notify you about them. Let me ping @Ermenrich, Erminwin, and HistoryofIran: to see those articles. Cheers! --Mann Mann (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at

this. Seems to have first edited it logged out. Ironic that he tells me to look at Izady's article. I reverted the IP also at [25]. Surely that's not an RS either? Hope you're well. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Henri de Valois Duke of Angouleme

"Grand Prior of France" is an senseless charge if it is not clearified of which Order ! 151.68.111.26 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Then bring a source! Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Their bastard brother Henri, d'Angouleme, grand prieur of France, wrote sonnets that circulated in manuscripts, including one set to music by Farice Caietain." --Brooks, Jeanice (2000). Courtly song in late sixteenth-century France. The University of Chicago Press, page 124. Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Ghiyath Al Din Tughlaq

Hello, you removed an edit I made to the Ghiyath Al Din Tughlaq page, can I know the details I missed so I can improve my editing and avoid adding unnecessary details Regards Jat1321 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• "rv, sources appear dated and no page numbers".

Therefore your sources failed WP:V.

Also, neither of your sources have authors. Kansas Bear (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Cassel (1071)

Hello Kansas Bear. I added primary sources and a discussion about the date of the battle. Why did you remove them? Axenhowe (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• First, primary sources have to be supported by secondary sources.
• Second, Nieuwenhuijsen, K., Robrecht de Fries. Graaf van Vlaanderen, held van Holland, Omniboek, Utrecht, 2022, appears to be a book written by a medical professional.
• Third, you removed a university source stating "Removed obsolete literature: Douglas"(when you added sources dated 1846, 1891, 1904, 1851, 1879, and 1840!) clearly your "idea" of "obsolete literature" is skewed.
• Fourth, I would suggest bringing secondary sources to the article talk page, instead of using outdated and unreliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Also, are you this person?

Kees Nieuwenhuijsen

Author, re-enactor and historical researcher at AXENHOWE

The Randstad, Netherlands

• Who is the author of Robrecht de Fries. Graaf van Vlaanderen, held van Holland? Which would indication a COI.--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• And since we are on the subject of this battle. Why continue to change the date of the battle and remove references when the reference(s) are university sources and all 3 university sources have quotes?
• Also, is this 82.168.94.54 and this 82.168.94.54, your IP? The ones you failed to use an edit summary? And why use non-English sources when 3 university sources have been provided?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• FYI, WP:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Kansas Bear,

  Yes, I am Kees Nieuwenhuijsen, author of the recent biography of Robert the Frisian.

  The fact that I have a biomedical education does not mean that I am ignorant in the medieval history of my home ground. For my book, I studied all relevant primary sources and literature, which is mostly in French and in Dutch.

  In the previous biography Charles Verlinden (1935) based his dating for the Battle of Cassel (22 February) on the non-contemporary Lambert of Ardres, and he did not consider the necrological data. I bases my dating (20 February) on the contemporary Willem of Jumièges, plus a number of necrologies.

  The date of 20 February (x. kalendas Martii, dominico septuagesime) for the Battle of Cassel is mentioned by Willem of Jumièges, the first chronicler to described the battle, working in the early 1070’s:

  - Willem of Jumièges, Gesta Normannorum Ducum, E.M.C. van Houts (ed.), The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis, and Robert of Torigny, vol. II, Clarendon, Oxford, 1995 (p. 146).

  About fifty years later, this was repeated by:

  - Orderic Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica, A. le Provost (ed.), Orderici Vitalis Angligenae, vol. II, Renouard, Parjs, 1840 en 1845 (p. 235).

  The death of Arnulf III and William Fitz Osbern is recorded at 20 February in various necrologies:

  - Chronicon Lirensis, RHGF XI, 1767, 366-367 (p. 471);

  - Necrologium Insulensis, E. Hautcoeur (ed.), Documents liturgiques et nécrologiques de l'église collégiale de Saint-Pierre de Lille, Picard, Parijs, 1895 (p. 305).

  - Necrologium Messinis, N.-N. Huyghebaert (ed.), ‘Quelques inscriptions retrouvées du nécrologe de l'Abbaye de Messines’, Handelingen van de Koninklijke Geschied- en Oudheidkundige Kring van Kortrijk, NS 33, 1963-1964, 263-280 (p. 271).

  - Necrologium Uticensis, RHGF XXIII, 1894, 484-491 (p. 485).

  - Obituariis Lirensis, RHGF XXIII, 1894, 470-475 (p. 637).

  The date of 22 February is mentioned one century after the battle by:

  - Lambert of Ardres, Historia comitum Ghisnensium et Ardensium dominorum ab anno 800-1203, I. Heller (ed.), MGH SS XXIV, 1879, 557-642 (p. 575).

  I think I have provided a solid foundation for my argument.

  Now let’s have a look at the three ‘university sources’ that you came up with. I did not look at them before, since they only mention the battle very briefly.

  Beeler 1971, p. 39 and 44, note 1: refers only to Verlinden 1935 and did not consult any primary sources himself.

  France 1994, p. 55: gives 22 February 1071 as the date, referring (note 8) to William of Jumieges (who has 20 February) and Gislebert, Ann. Egmund., Flandria Generosa,  and Lambert of Hersfeld (neither of these four mention an exact date).  

  Douglas 1967, p. 225: gives 22 February 1071, referring (note 48) to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (no exact date), Orderic Vitalis (20 February) and J. Tait (1927) for a discussion of the date of the battle.

  Unfortunately I have only limited access to the study by Tait, but in the GoogleBooks fragments it can be seen that he firmly considers 20 February to be the date on which earl William FitzGerald died, while 22 February for the battle must be a misconversion.

  So much for your three ‘university sources’.

  I would like to modify the Wiki-page on the Battle of Cassel (1071) on the basis of my research and my expertise on the subject. Please stop interfering. Thank you. Axenhowe (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This editor could use some advice

You’ve interacted with them before. [26] Doug Weller talk 17:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022

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 Australian military leadership and Nick-D on the First Crusade's Byzantine connection

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) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Rum (endonym)

added a link pointing to Parthian

Sultanate of Rum

added a link pointing to Parthian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Croÿ

thanks for clearing up those link errors on antoine's page,

wish i had a good tree visualisation for the family, because its very confusing (bit clearer on dutch wikipedia, but alas not much, they don't have his dad there either sadly) the amboise error was more me expecting it to red link and then not checking to see if it actually did in the end Sovietblobfish (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

You are most welcome! I might dig around and see what I can find. Stay safe Sovietblobfish. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks, good luck if you go digging!!

i greatly appreciate the effort you put into improving medieval history on wikipedia :) Sovietblobfish (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Sovietblobfish. I try. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022

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: Meet some of the project coordinators

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Unverifiable sources

Re your edit here (removing some citations to non-existent work by Virginia Aksan, and your related email) I guess you could remove mention of any publications that don't seem to exist. Certainly Virginia Aksan has written a great deal about Ottoman military history so some of the material might actually be out there, though obviously not in the places that were asserted. Do you know who might have added the defective references? Incidentally, somebody ought to improve our article in Virginia Aksan! EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

user:Patrockk. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Ping User:Patrockk in case they want to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Apparently user:Patrockk did not feel like responding and edited here instead. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict at Ibn al-Haytham

Hello, I've restored the Mesopotamian bit because it seems to be supported by the article body. As per sources, he was born Basra, Iraq, which was part of that historical region. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I am not too worried, it just made it sound like he existed during Sumerian times(to me at least). No problem. Stay safe Throast! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No, you're right, that doesn't add up. A new user added it just a few weeks ago. Will restore. Cheers. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022

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 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

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) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Catherine of France, countess of Charolais

Hello. Sorry for the inconvenience for my edits in this article. I just want the article to be more accurate. It's okay if I put the year of birth in the header as 1428/31?. I thought it would be the most logical since with her sister Radegunde two dates of birth are contemplated (1425, 1428) given that if the possibility that the first was born in 1428 is admitted, it shields the opportunity for the birth of her youngest sister, Catherine , In that same year. That does not need any source to say, it is a biology question, because from August, the month in which Radegunda was born according to one of the sources, to December is insufficient to complete a pregnancy. So if you admit that source, and leave open the possibility that Radegund was born in that year, you automatically have to accept that Catherine was born after 1428, because she leaves you no room to do so.

I hope to express myself well. Thank you very much for her patience and a huge greeting from Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.94.49.136 (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• "That does not need any source to say, it is a biology question, because from August, the month in which Radegunda was born according to one of the sources, to December is insufficient to complete a pregnancy. So if you admit that source, and leave open the possibility that Radegund was born in that year, you automatically have to accept that Catherine was born after 1428."

Considering I am the father of four, I do not need biology explained to me, yet again. The fallacy with your "logic" is assuming that August 1428 is the correct date of birth for Radegunda, when in actuality 1428 could be a misprint of 1425. Granted this is all my interpretation and I have nothing factual to support this theory.

• "It's okay if I put the year of birth in the header as 1428/31?"

Do you have a reference that states Catherine's year of birth was 1431? If not, it(1431) can be removed as original research.

• "So if you admit that source, and leave open the possibility that Radegund was born in that year, you automatically have to accept that Catherine was born after 1428, because she leaves you no room to do so."

Again. Faulty logic can not replace a source. Find a source stating Catherine's birth year was later than 1428, since I found sources stating Radegund's birth year as 1425. Why are you unable to find any sources for either Radegund or Catherine? Why did you not search for more sources to confirm the birth years before using your own interpretation? --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Voucher. I have already changed the date in her mother's article, where it said that she was born in 1431/2. That fact is what motivated me to change the date, since in the other Wikis they only give as valid 1428 as the birth of Radegunda. I think it was a logical doubt on my part to think that according to that data it was impossible for Catherine to be born on that date. Seeing the data in her mother's article, I saw logic in that bracket of years and that's why I added it to her article.

Thank you for her kindness, you really make the new participants, especially those of us who don't speak their language, feel at home.

Forgive me if I have also been impolite, but between the fact that I cannot express myself as I would like and that many times I have had editions thrown away without reading them because of not being registered, one is more on the defensive.

All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.94.49.136 (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Victoria Arakelova

Dear Kansas Bear,

I had previously started a discussion in WP:RSN on the reliability of Victoria Arakelova in her article about the number of Iranian Azerbaijanis. My concerns were:

1. She clearly deflates and miscalculates the percentage of the Azerbaijanis given her own estimate, although she was able to make more advanced calculations. This is a clear case of 1+1=11, so even if this source were 100.0 reliable, I wouldn't feel good about the inclusion of the percentage due to a mathematical fallacy.
2. Her seemingly-biased tone, such as the use of "alias" regarding the name of the Azerbaijanis, as if it's a criminal case. Plus, previous points of Beshogur at Talk:Azerbaijanis#Author bias: Arakelova Victoria.
3. Her view is an outlier.
4. The journal she was published in is run by Garnik Asatrian, her mentor and colleague, which may explain some aspects of the article to be ignored.

Two editors responded:

1. One made a single comment: that she is a known editor, but her circumstances may influence her view.
2. The second editor responded twice, stating that the estimates vary widely and this is from a scholarly journal, but they wouldn't be against removing it, if it's indeed a fringe view.

I lastly responded with my 4th concern and that the current estimate range starts at a greater number than the presented by this editor, because the lowest estimate presented by the editor, excluding Arakelova's, was from 2005, when the Iranian population was 10 percent lower.

There were no further input from them or other editors and thus no definitive conclusion. The current problem is the lack of participation from enough editors, and this issue has resurfaced at Talk:Azerbaijanis#Arakelova by another user. I would be delighted if you, having previously commented on the issue, could look at this case and state your opinion there.

Thank you, Ayıntaplı (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022

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 looks at British Territorials in India Interview: On turning 200 (issues of the Bugle!) Review essay: Coordinators' 2022 reading list Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

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) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Sayyid dynasty origin.

On sayyid dynasty. Anjana might not be historian byt what about other 5 sources? What is wrong with John mcleod, who is a Professor on indian history?46.212.40.72 (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about, since you have given no details(ie. title of book, page number, quotes). Why not start a discussion on the article talk page, state what you want added/changed in the article and show how your evidence supports said addition/change. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

OR in Hun articles

I'm not sure if we need to wait till Geray Altay's block expires to avoid the appearance of grave dancing, but if you look through the many, many articles on Huns and Hun-related individuals, he's created there seem to be numerous instances of OR or not accurately representing scholarly sources. This will probably take an organized cleanup of some sort (and possibly involve nominating some of these articles for deletion if the individuals are not notable or else merging with other articles). I count around 75 articles that he's created, almost all on individual Huns.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Giray Altay wrote a lot of WP:OR and their POV tone is an issue as well. I am seeing a lot of similarities between Second Perso-Turkic War and Hunnic invasion[sic] of the Sasanian Empire, which was created by Giray Altay. Similar cherry-picking of information, ignoring what was actually stated by sources, Stonewalling, etc, etc.

The Hunnic invasion of the Sasanian Empire should probably be deleted and the information added to Bahram IV article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page reader) Hi guys. {{Huns}} needs some cleanup too. I have stopped adding it to the related articles because some entries seem like dubious/questionable. Feel free to remove them. Plus the "Wars" could have wrong chronology. @Ermenrich: take a look at this SPI and revision history of Talk:Second Perso-Turkic War; very similar to recent incidents. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mann Mann, what’s up at Huns? I think GA only added to the first section there…—Ermenrich (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I'm talking about the navbox.[27] No issues there? Sometimes I visit it for patrolling purpose. --Mann Mann (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That’s where most of his 75 articles are linked, so probably there are problems. For one thing, I think the idea that some of those individuals are Huns is sort of dubious.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

After removing those entries, the navbox should be removed from their articles too. However, if some of them are really Hun, then maybe it's not a bad idea to keep their entries (useful for the readers). --Mann Mann (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure not everything he added was bad. A lot of it suffers from the POV he expresses here though, wherein he claims to be able to determine which scholars are "misinterpreting" the sources and should thus be kept out of Wikipedia [28] (he said somewhere he always only added those etymologies that made sense to him and ignored the others, but I can't find the quote) Edit It's the same diff, duh..--Ermenrich (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's a good example of an article that probably needs to go, Ambazouces: According to Procopius, Alexander the Great built the so-called Caspian Gates, to protect the Persian land from the Huns, who settled in the land between the gates and the "Maeotic lake", and, passing through the natural gates of the pass, were able to easily enter the Persian and Roman lands with fresh horses and plunder them. According to Procopius, Alexander also established a fortress, which was held "by many men in turn as time went on", up until the times of Procopius, when Ambazouces, a Hun but "a friend of the Romans and of the Emperor Anastasius", became guardian of the gates and commander of the fortress. Hmmm...--Ermenrich (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I just discovered that that page was actually a duplicate of the already existing Ambazuces. He's also done this with Edeco (pre-existing Edeko. We'll need to be on the lookout for other cases.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I would say I am surprised, but I am not. Nice catch, Ermenrich! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Kalends of January

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Charles de Gonzague

Hi Kansas,

Hope you're avoiding the chill and having a good new year I see you recently worked on the article of Urban VIII, a welcome improvement to the article, I observe in that article there is the following (unreferenced) line ", in 1627, when the direct male line of the Gonzagas in Mantua became extinct, he controversially favoured the succession of the Protestant Duke Charles of Nevers against the claims of the Catholic Habsburgs. "

This, does not seem right to me, I can find no reference to Nevers being Protestant on either his English or French wikipedia page. His children have traditional Catholic names and he was a member of a Catholic Holy Order in Mantua. Moreover both of his parents were at the least tentative supporters of the Catholic League, and by the 17th century, a French noble of his standing converting to Protestantism without a Protestant parent would be extraordinary (given the tide against the upper nobility converting to Protestantism turned in 1562.)

I've give it a brief look in my books, but they're almost exclusively 16th century or older, so I have nothing that can confirm these suspicions either way, would you happen to have anything? Sovietblobfish (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Oddly, I had just did a few edits to Charles' article and I had not even noticed the connection between those two. I did find:

• Infinitesimal: How a Dangerous Mathematical Theory Shaped the Modern World, Amir Alexander, page 132;"In 1627, when there was no male heir to the ancient Gonzaga line of Mantua, he actually supported the succession of a Protestant, Charles Gonzaga, Duke of Nevers, over the Habsburg claimant."

Which is the only source I have found concerning Charles' religious orientation(though hardly WP:RS). Charles married a Guise did he not? They were known for their ultra-Catholicism.

I will remove the "protestant" part from the Urban VIII article. If Charles' religious views were so prominent in his life, I suspect sources would be more than willingly to highlight it.

In the case of Urban VIII, many pope articles were literally copied from Encyclopaedia Britannica. The number of mistakes I have corrected from Encyclopaedia Britannica references on Wikipedia are innumerable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The Guise family flirted with ultra Catholicism as it suited their political ends in the sixteenth century. After reconciling with the crown in 1594, I'm not aware of the family continuing that reputation. That said, they definitely didn't have any Protestants in their main branches (unusual for a family of their social rank in 1560), and it would be incredibly noteworthy for a member of a princely house to convert to Protestantism after 1562, which is when we begin to see a lot of the upper crust of the nobility beginning to abjure (such as Léonor d'Orléans, duc de Longueville and François II, Duke of Nevers before his death in late 1562)

I suspect what has caused the mistake here in this Alexander book, is extrapolating the Thirty Years War Catholic vs Protestants beginning into an assumption that anyone who opposed Hapsburg interests during that conflict was doing so on religious grounds. Which is of course erroneous

My thanks for your investigation. Sovietblobfish (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Anytime Sovietblobfish! If you feel up to it you might contact Robinvp11, who has done extensive work on Thirty Years War and the War of the Mantuan Succession. There is a chance, however slight, they might have some information. Stay safe! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Robin agrees with our assessment that it is vanishingly unlikely that Charles was a Protestant. Sovietblobfish (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Very good! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

GA topicon grammar

When I hover over the Good Article topicons on your userpage, the text says "This user wrote '[title]' to become a Good Article on [date]". In the wikitext, you replaced the word "helped" with the word "wrote", which has messed up the grammar. Might I suggest changing the "action" parameter to something that better fits the sentence structure of the template? Apologies for bothering you about such a small issue. Toadspike (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Ibn al-Banna' al-Marrakushi

Hey Kansas Bear, I restored the scholar's nationality in the lead as it's how the two (2nd and 3rd) Encyclopaedia of Islam editions (and other reliable sources) are mentioning him. I hope you liked the work I did on the article, I started expanding it in November with the most possible number of reliable (secondary and tertiary) sources. I hope you keep an eye on the article if any IPs started adding an ethnicity to the lead. Kind regards -Suratrat (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Charles de Bourbon

Hi Kansas,

Hope you're well. Just to let you know, I have taken care of the Charles de Bourbon article that is on your 'needs reference' list. The article now has 120 footnotes. :) Of course I imagine your attentions will still elevate the article as my grammar and spelling are as a rule very crude.

Sovietblobfish (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I am sure your grammar and writing are not as crude as you are letting on, but I can do a read-through. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a look and workover, there's no need to change the names however, I like to keep peoples names unchanged, we don't go around making louis xiv into lewis xiv, nor would we change François Hollande into Francis Holland for the sake of an english readers sensibilities. If for whatever reason quantity of english books supercedes naming people accurately, which I don't think it should, I'm pretty sure François and de bourbon are used in a majority of them as well. Sovietblobfish (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no problems with that(leaving the names in their original French spelling), but it only takes a few determined editors to cause a stir on the article talk page over naming practices. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad its not a problem. Fortunately (in some regards, in other regards its a bit sad) my area of work on wikipedia is very lonely, the only other content editors I've encountered in the several years I've worked on these articles are yourself and Robin so I don't encounter many determined editors! Sovietblobfish (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Some editors are here to enrich certain topics(battles, wars) as opposed to bios over French royalty and nobility. French nobility/royalty has been an area I have edited for years since no one had put much effort(ie.sourcing) into it, compared to English nobility/royalty. Oddly, there seem to be plenty of sources in English for French nobility, so I do not believe that is the problem. Anyway, I am glad you are here. If you need anything, as always feel free to ask.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I've done my fair share of battles, edicts, massacres and assassination articles, but it is true my attention has for the moment turned to sorting out the biography section of the FWOR. I think I have another maybe 30-50 to do, and then I'll return to cover events like the Estates General of 1576 and Assassination of the Duke of Guise (1588) and other such projects.

Eventually it is my ambition to write articles for the individual wars in the FWOR, however that will be a formidable prospect, that I am putting off until everything else is above board.

I feel confident I can always look to you when I have problems with sourcing information, as you appear to have a formidable library and the will to apply it :) Sovietblobfish (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Kansas Bear and Sovietblobfish! For the benefit of any talk page watchers, the page being discussed is Charles de Bourbon (cardinal). This looks to be an exciting time in French history. EdJohnston (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023

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 key contributions of two Australian scientists in World War II Review essay: Nick-D reports on his recent visits to British military sites

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) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Outdate Historians

Hello!

You say that Gibbon or Pennell are both outdated historians (which I don't deny), what about J.B.Bury, in his "History of the Later Roman Empire"?

Does Wikipedia have an agreed-upon list?

I'd hate to make edits based upon Bury only to find I've jumped from Gibbon's 18th century frying pan into a [some appropriate continuation of a weak metaphor] fire. RMcPhillip (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I honestly can not recall using any of Bury's Roman history works. My understanding is sources of that age should only be used when quoted directly.

• "Does Wikipedia have an agreed-upon list?"

No.

• "I'd hate to make edits based upon Bury .."

Are there no modern sources that state the same thing Bury mentions? With as much that has been written about the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire using modern historiography, I see no reason to use sources so outdated. Granted if someone quotes directly from Gibbon, Pennell, or Bury then I would expect a corresponding reference. But this is just my opinion on the matter. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for the help and patience resolving the error on my first wiki submission! Biblicalhope (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Still interested in Great Zimbabwe

I ask because as part of my research for an article on Race and Archaeology I discovered that the unwalled settlements continued in use after 1450 but aren't mentioned at all in the article. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023

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 translation and Eisenhower's armies Review essay: Catlemur on military museums in Athens

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) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Eleanor of Aquitaine is my many great grandmother. Howard, mail@howardfisher.com. Please email me

Please contact me, mail@howardfisher.com 2600:1700:5803:4010:40C2:D2B:3146:84CD (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Bogomils

This book about the Bogomils published by McFarland specifically mentions LP Brocketts book which is a view held by other scholars as well. There's no valid reason why you're preventing it from being mentioned "https://books.google.com/books?id=__VWBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=bogomils+history&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiM0e330sP9AhUQmIkEHdMEBKMQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=Early%20protestants%20&f=false"Rote1234 (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

LP Brocketts was an M.D., not an historian, was published by the American Baptist Publication Society and is quite dated.

Your first attempt, you called them "proto-protestants" which is not mentioned by Russell Hardin, which is original research.

Your second attempt, stated "Some historians scholars have viewed Bogomils as "Early Protestants".", except Noel Buxton was not an historian and your other "source" was a history of cooking(which was clearly out of context for this issue). If there are historians stating Bogomils are "proto-Protestants" or "early Protestants", then it should be easy to find reliable sources stating this fact.

If you can not understand this, feel free to take this to WP:ANI. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

So you don't believe LB Brocketts book as discussed in the Mcfarland book merits mention as an opinion?? Rote1234 (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

An opinion of a medical doctor from 1879? No, I would not use it. Who is Georgi Vasilev? Another medical doctor? You want to write, "L.P. Brocketts, a medical doctor, called the Bogomils, "early protestants"?

Also, learn to indent your response(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Catholic League

Hi Kansas, Small note regarding the Catholic League rework you've got going in your drafts. You state (or perhaps the article prior to your work states) that after the assassination of the duke, Henri III fled from Paris. He fled from Paris back in May, and had not been able to return since. He did depart Blois for a new base of Tours early in 1589 though.

Sovietblobfish (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks Sovietblobfish! --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help :)

I'm glad you're tackling this project, I would entirely lose myself in something as big as trying to encapsulate the numerous facets of the Catholic Ligue from its various factions to manifestations.

If ever you have a FWOR query, or need any material for the period, my door is open Sovietblobfish (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, considering everything I have going on irl and online, it may be some time before I work on the Catholic Ligue. Thanks for the offer though! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Your insight

Hi Kansas Bear, hope you're doing well. Would you be so kind as to check this article : Battle of Chenab (1739) ? Sounds like this event (a Sikh raid on the rear of Nader's army when it had left Delhi) is described as a "battle" when it was only a skirmish with no real fighting. Thoughts ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wikaviani! Well, from the only 3rd party sources presented in that article:

• Paul Joseph (2016). The SAGE Encyclopedia of War: Social Science Perspectives. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9781483359908.
• Axworthy 2009
  

Neither has a page number and the link to a page in the Paul Joseph source does not present the incident as a battle. Axworthy mentions Chenab once and mentions ".. attacks by Yusufzai tribesmen.", but no battles.

These two sources used do not support the sentence, " This battle occurred when Nader Shah was leaving India after looting Delhi."

All the other sources for that sentence are not Western sources, and one is cited even twice(#5 & #6):Bhangu, Rattan Singh (1914). Panth Prakash Vol.2 English Translation. Bhangu 1914, p. 127-129.

What is more telling is that Kaushik Roy's Warfare in Pre-British India: 1500BCE to 1740CE, goes into detail about Nader's battle with the Mughal Empire, but makes no mention of any battle vs Sikhs. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your time and valuable response. I'm wondering if this event is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article or not.~~ ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Pierre Charlot is a very good page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023

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: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Imam Bukhari

Hi there I noticed you undo every change I did can you please tell me the reason Alihd23 (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:Ethnicity. Also, most of the articles where you added Persian did not have any mention or references supporting Persian ethnicity in those articles.(violates WP:RS, WP:OR) In one article it stated either Arab or Persian ethnicity which makes your edit a violation of WP:UNDUE. Continued editing of this type can be considered disruptive editing and result in a block or ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Review Article

Hi I saw your edits on Battle of Jamrud and thought you would be great addition to review article Cis-Sutlej states based on your study of sources and understanding of the subject. Cis-Sutlej states article was previously mostly false where the sources did not even support the sentences in the article. So I studied the existing sources on the article and added additional reliable sources and made considerable change to make the article more reliable and accurate and made the source templates more informative with page numbers and so on for anyone to verify. You can see my version of article here [29]. But all my changes were reverted to previous version by user CrashLandingNew, atleast 4 times. I had already initiated a discussion on the article's talk page and then also left "stop disruptive edits" on user's talk page but this user in return sent the same warning message back on my talk page [30] and also immediately submitted an incident against me on Wikipedia administrator noticeboard [31]. User kept reverting article and was quite hostile on my talk page [32] and even on article's talk page [33]. Can you please review my version of the change and the current change user CrashLandingNew reverted back to and make a judgement? I haven't received much feed back from anyone to review the page for verification. If you need any information from me related to article or any source, I would be happy to share but all sources with page numbers can also be seen on my version of the article. Javerine (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Charles VII

Sorry about the edit conflict, Kansas Bear. I appreciate your fixing the major problem I was just trying to clean up the rest of the uncited material, but accidentally started from the diff. Wtfiv (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Its all good. I thought that was your goal. Stay safe, Wtfiv! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Imadaddin Nasimi

I'm not sure what prompted this comment. I'll assume you were having a bad day. Nowhere in my comment on that thread did I question your neutrality. My question about the lack of application of MOS:Ethnicity to other poet articles was a genuine one, directed not just to you or your contributions, but as a general question for which I thought there would be a reasonable explanation. Your accusations in the linked comment are not very kind and surprising for an editor of 17 years. I would urge you to take any concerns you have about those issues to the relevant noticeboards rather than bringing them up during content discussions on Wiki articles ("Comment on content, not on the contributor."). — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Well all "assumptions' aside, let us just see what you said.

• "but how is Nasimi being Azerbaijani irrelevant when the majority of his works are written in Azerbaijani and it is his works in Azerbaijani that he is famous for? Why is the MOS:ETHNICITY guideline not being applied to poets of other ethnicities from the same region?"

I removed Azerbaijani under the premise of MOS:Ethnicity, nowhere did I state Azerbaijani language or ethnicity as irrelevant. Also, in rebuttal to your second sentence, I posted, "I recently reverted the edits of Alihd23, who was adding Persian to articles." which contains a link where Alihd23 added Persian to numerous articles and then I reverted them. Your response to this was,

• "I am simply stating what I have observed. I am not familiar with Alihd23 or the topic area in which you have reverted their edits."

Meaning you did not check the link to Alihd23's edits and or my revertion of their edits. That was loud and clear.

So yes, you did question my neutrality and even after I gave you a link to check what another POV pusher was adding you ignored that as well. I responded in the manner in which you spoke, so do not act like I did not.

Feel free to take me to AN/I or whatever board of your choosing.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• I removed Azerbaijani under the premise of MOS:Ethnicity, nowhere did I state Azerbaijani language or ethnicity as irrelevant

The premise of MOS:Ethnicity is that Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject’s notability. Therefore, by removing it under this premise, you imply that you do not find the subject's ethnicity to be relevant. If I was wrong in assuming that, then please tell me which other premise of MOS:Ethnicity you were referring to when you cited it?

• Also, in rebuttal to your second sentence, I posted, "I recently reverted the edits of Alihd23, who was adding Persian to articles." which contains a link where Alihd23 added Persian to numerous articles and then I reverted them.
• Meaning you did not check the link to Alihd23's edits and or my revertion of their edits. That was loud and clear.

Your reverts of Alihd23 were not relevant to the question I posed. I asked why MOS:Ethnicity was not being applied to other poets of the region. Your reverts were in the articles for Ishaq ibn Rahwayh (a jurist) and Muhammad al-Bukhari (a scholar). I did check the reverts when you first linked them and found them to be irrelevant to our discussion. I stated my unfamiliarity with the topic of jurists and scholars, not with the reverts you linked. I'm not sure how you assumed that the tone of my question and your response were similar, let alone 'same'. I do not have the time or energy to report anyone, which is why I approached you on your talk page instead of a noticeboard. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• "our reverts of Alihd23 were not relevant to the question I posed. I asked why MOS:Ethnicity was not being applied to other poets of the region."

Wtf? Like I was checking whether the individuals in question were poets or not. Really? This gives you the right to question someone else's neutrality? Bullshit!

This is the opening sentence of the article:

• "Seyid Ali Imadaddin Nasimi (Azerbaijani: Seyid Əli İmadəddin Nəsimi, سئید علی عمادالدّین نسیمی; c. 1369/70 – 1418/19), commonly known as Nasimi[a] (Nəsimi, نسیمی), was a 14th and 15th century Hurufi poet. He is regarded as one of the greatest Turkic poets of his time and one of the most prominent figures in Azerbaijani literature."

1.the poets name is written in Azerbaijani(no other languages present)

2.the second sentence calls him the "greatest Turkic poets of his time"

3.also second sentence states "most prominent figures in Azerbaijani literature."

So you need to state this poet was Azerbaijani in the first sentence, then reiterate this in the second(Turkic poets), followed by the mention of Azerbaijani literature?

Wow, just wow. I have no need of anymore of your vague comments regarding my neutrality. Done here.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Anglo-Sikh wars battles

I’ve heavily researched the Anglo-Sikh wars. The battle of mudki should be inconclusive or a Sikh victory because the battle didn’t decide much of anything although British suffered heavier casualties. Amarpal Singh a historian on the war said that both sides had roughly 20k troops. Both the commanders Lal singh and tej Singh commanded 10k each. During the battle of Mudki there were indeed only 10-11k British troops but for the Sikhs Lal Singh spilt his force in half as his goal was to lose the war so it would be 5k. Ferozshah should be a draw, it literally states in the rest of the reading that the British withdrew and tej singh ended up doing the same. The British suffered way more casualties in this battle so how is it a British victory? Chillianwala is know to be the greatest Indian victory against the British during this time. It again states that both sides claim victory but that the British did withdraw first and that even though the British had every statical advantage failed to defeat the Sikhs. This battle also had a hand in inspiring the rebellion of 1857 Historian2325 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply Again in the first Anglo-sikh war both sides had 20k troops it makes no sense why at ferozshah the Sikh troops are numbering between 35-50k. In the battle of sobroan more troops were sent giving the Sikhs 40k total but that was the last battle in the first war. Historian2325 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Historian2325 (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest using the article talk page. Present your evidence(sources, quotes, page numbers) and get consensus for change(s) to the article.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this not the article talk page? I signed up today, still trying to figure out how everything works on here. Historian2325 (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

No. This is my talk page. Articles have tabs at the top of their pages(at least on the computers I use). There is a tab that says talk. Talk:Battle of Mudki, is the article talk page for the Battle of Mudki. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Historian2325 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ashina tribe

The last reference you wrote about Ashina is not universally accepted, and never has been. Ashina probably did not know any language other than Turkic. It is not true that Ashina is of Indo-European ancestry or speaks one of these languages. As it is written in the origin of Ashina, each historian puts forward different opinions. As seen in the study of the early Ashina princess in January, the Ashina princess was 97.7 percent Northeast Asian.

Please make sure your perspective is not euro-centristic. Tumen-il (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023

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 Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

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) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Amritsar

as it happens I am looking for a relatively small problem as a break from some messy stuff I am working on so I will take another look later today. (I was slightly startled to get an answer; that doesn't usually happen <g>). I won't be able to assess due weight but possibly I can improve the writing, and the stuff I was talking about on the talk page.

On another note, I see you are involved in military history articles, and one of the things I am wanting to take a break from is figuring out "volunteers" vs "non-Germans", etc in WW2 German armed forces. Maybe you can suggest someone I could consult? Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

• Robinvp11 has done quite a bit of good work in battle articles. I am, however, uncertain if their interest runs as far as WWII. Never hurts to ask them
• Nick-D, a military history wikiproject coordinator.
• Ian Rose, another military history wikiproject coordinator.

Perhaps the latter two may know of some editors that specialize in WWII battle editing? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Rumi ethnicity

Hello there u have removed Rumi Persian ethnicity from Rumi article although most of the sources obviously mentioned Persian for him could you please tell the reason? Alihd23 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:Ethnicity. Which is exactly what I told you before. You should respond to EdJohnston's comment on your talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok I won't add Persian ethnicity anymore but wiki laws and instructions are difficult to learn Alihd23 (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Sarmatians

Thoughts about these additions?[34] - LouisAragon (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Iazyges as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, here is my take on these sources:

The first source, by Magdolna Sz. Kispál can not be any more modern than 1984, the year they died. Therefore their sweeping statement, "Many historians agree that proto-Hungarians may have been present among the Sarmatians", seems unlikely since we are just ?now? hearing of this? This source also needs to be verified by quote(s) and specific page number(not a range of pages).

The second source(Az antropológusok álláspontját támasztja alá a magyarság őstörténetével kapcsolatos legújabb genetikai kutatások eredménye), has no author, and also needs to be verified by quote(s) and specific page number.

The third source(Az ősmagyarok genezisének szarmatakori etapjáról) has no page number. Thus unverifiable

The fourth source(A Magyarok őstörténetéről Bizonyosságok, Hipotézisek, Hiedelmek) has no page number. Thus unverifiable

The fifth source(Szkíta-magyar nyelvhasonlítás) has no page number. Thus unverifiable.

As with any non-English source, this information, especially when making these types of(possibly extraordinary) claims, need specific page numbers and quotes. The Hungarian claim seems extraordinary since prior to this addition, Hungarian was mentioned twice in the article and not in connection to the Sarmatians. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps. I wasn't able to pinpoint any translation or whatsoever of those Hungarian-language sources (I don't read Hungarian). I did a quick search, and it seems such claims are not supported by English-language WP:RS. I will revert and direct them to the talk page. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to be so late to the party; sounds good. A truly exceptional amount of the Balkan part of the Sarmatian history is tied to contemporary ethnic conflicts in the 20th century and beyond, including a number of Sarmatian or other burial sites being labeled as being from the proto-contemporary culture, even when they so very clearly are not (and those labeling them as such were almost certainly aware). Hardly surprising to see such a claim made in Hungarian sources, and perhaps even less so to see it not reflected in English sources. There is likely some sort of connection between them, just given the relative co-location, and somewhat high Sarmatian admixture from historical Hungarian genome sequencing, but they seem to be distinct from each other (perhaps best understood as a steppe equivalent of Migratory Wave Theory?). Most of our present sources seem to consider a wide range of possibilities for basically all early Hungarian history (although I am far from an expert on them in particular). It's certainly possible, but a lot of English High-Quality Reliable Sources I've found seem to argue that Hungarians didn't really become a distinct group until they settled in the Carpathians. That certainly seems sensible to me: it's much harder to create a truly distinct culture as a migratory tribe in the steppe than settled in the middle of a mountain range. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Seleucid Empire had a Greek Hellenic democracy (a bit different from American liberal democracy)

CTRL+F 'democra' https://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles/hel-ion-eurconfed.htm will give you:

''The form of government was some combination of democracy and oligarchy, whereby all adult male citizens had full political rights, including the eligibility for office, but in fact the offices tended to be in the hands of the wealthy more often than not.'' TruckDealer (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

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 Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

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) 11:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023

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 Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

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) 08:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

They're spreading

Just FYI, the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields people have started targeting other articles, see [35].--Ermenrich (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If the disruption continues, ask for page protection.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of destroyed libraries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sázava.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023

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 and Nick-D review three recent works

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) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Kansas,

My thanks for the email. I have removed the offending paragraph. I recognise it probably went too far, and I will try to pencil inside the lines of WP:OWN more dutifully going forward.

sovietblobfish (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

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 alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

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) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Mu'tah

Why the Battle of Mu'tah was edited. It is given that Khalid successfully rescued the remaining forces. Else remove him from the infobox. It is missleading. Ajayraj890 (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Per the Template:Infobox military conflict, states that only X victory or Inconclusive be in the result section of the infobox. Your opinion that it is misleading, means nothing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Then, Khalid ibn al-Walid should be removed from the 'commander' parameter. The only commanders participated in the conflict should be displayed there. Khalid didn't participated in the battle as he came as a rescuer. It is not my opinion. It is clearly misleading. Ajayraj890 (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No, Khalid ibn al-Walid was with the army and after the last leader was killed, took command and led the army away. He did not arrive later.

• "Khalid didn't participated in the battle as he came as a rescuer."

Uh, wrong.

• "Khalid is said to have fought valiantly at the Battle of Mu'tah and to have broken nine swords during the battle."
• "Khalid distinguished himself in the Battle of Mu'tah of 629 against the Ghassanids."
• "In Bukhari Khalid bin al Waleed says: “During the battle of Mu'tah nine swords broke in my hand."
• "According to that, Khalid made peace with the Hirans provided they delivered Karamah to him. ... in them. Then he went away, saying "When I fought on the Day of Mu'tah, nine swords were broken in my hand.." --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

  Got it. But " "According to Muslim sources, after three of their leaders were killed, the command was given to Khalid ibn al-Walid and he succeeded in saving the rest of the force" shouldn't be considered? Ajayraj890 (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Not according to the infobox parameters.--Kansas Bear (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

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: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

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) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The vandalism in parts recorted to Armenia

Hi i wanna ask why do you dllete everything related to armenia You say that "at that time Armenia didnt existed" but you should search and read History of Armenia before vandalising every part of topic related to Armenia and especialy Armenian nationaly hero Andranik Ozanian why do you dellete everything related to him? ArturMusheghtyan (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I deleted anachronistic flags, where the image itself states 1918. I also deleted mention of Ozanian, from infoboxes, where said individual is not mentioned in the article. Feel free to take your concerns to this admin's talk page.

Also, this is your only warning. Another personal attack and you will be banned from my talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Battle of the Trench

There is a user, Kaalakaa, who has edited Islamic articles and has reflected the user's own personal views. First of, the user made it appear as if Prophet Muhammed was attacking the Quraysh first, while he was being prosecuted by the Quraysh when he started teaching. He falsely accused the Prophet Muhammad of having raiding and plundering caravans without proper justification (the Quraysh had violated the Treaty of hudaybiyyah, a truce between the Quraysh and the Muslims) and falsely claiming that the battle was a Quryash victory.

For the date of the battle, the Hadith of the battle taking place in Shawwal 5 AH was used as the evidence for the date of the battle.

I ask that you refer to my discussion titled "On regards on edits done by Kaalakaa" on the talkpage of Muhammad, where a much longer version of this was made.

I ask that you also undo your revertion on the Battle of the Trench.

I hope this explains my actions. Please feel free to contact to get more info. Chxeese (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the user seems to qualify for number 4 of your "How to tell if you are dealing with a disruptive IP/editor" on your user page

- Chxeese (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I have read your comments on the talk page of Muhammad. Your comments indicate some hostility towards certain academics, if you believe said academics are unreliable source(s) then you should take your concerns to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. At the Battle of Uhud article you removed;

• "Muhammad initially spread his new religion in Mecca, where he found no opposition from the local people until he attacked their beliefs."

This sentence is supported by Buhl & Welch(Encyclopaedia of Islam) and Bernard Lewis. It appears you have removed this similar information from the Battle of the Trench article, as well.

• "I ask that you also undo your revertion on the Battle of the Trench."

I find that your edit on the Battle of the Trench removed numerous references(Watt, Brockopp, Lapidus, Qureshi, Hoyland, Buhl/Welch(Encyclopaedia of Islam), therefore I will not be reverting my edit.

• "For the date of the battle, the Hadith of the battle taking place in Shawwal 5 AH was used as the evidence for the date of the battle."

The date for this battle is cited by Watt, a secondary source, which you removed.

I would strongly suggest you use the article(s) talk pages to discuss, in detail, any issues you have with Kaalakaa's edits. Blanket edits accompanied by personal attacks can result in a block or ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Night Attack At Targovişte

Why are you deleting my resources unnecessarily? The Netflix resource you mentioned was warned by Beshogur and I removed the Netflix resource. In the Netflix resource I gave, I wanted to point out that Romanian and Turkish historians said it was an Ottoman victory. So why did you delete other sources? When you are really a moderator on Wikipedia, you become powerful. I hope one day you can learn to be Objective. Keremmaarda (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you read? I have told you and your friends explicitly to take your concerns to the talk page. You are using Turkish sources to push a POV on a GA article. You think Netflix is a reliable source, take your concerns to reliable sources noticeboard.

• "In the Netflix resource I gave, I wanted to point out that Romanian and Turkish historians said it was an Ottoman victory."

I honestly do not care who won the battle, but you can not change information, in a GA article, using 3 Turkish sources while ignoring what the rest of the article states.

• "When you are really a moderator on Wikipedia, you become powerful. I hope one day you can learn to be Objective."

Says the person who is using unverifiable Turkish sources. You do know this is ENGLISH Wikipedia? One day you might learn to read what other editors are telling you.

Continued tag-teaming to edit war will be reported. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think John Freely is Turkish. :D Keremmaarda (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I have openly expressed my opinions on the talk page. The rest is up to you. If you have any other issue in your mind (about the Targovishte war), you can ask. Keremmaarda (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

While your busy thinking you are so funny(must be a slow day on Discord), it up to YOU to PROVE the information supports YOUR change. Hence why you have to use the talk page and get consensus. Pity while getting others to tag-team edit war you did not learn about discussion or consensus. Imagine the other editors laughing about that!--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

AND, you continue to change information on a GA article. Without discussion or consensus. Pity you seem unable to find the talk page for articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

But no source writes that Mehmed was in this war. This is not even a matter of discussion. Keremmaarda (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Then why is it called Mehmed II's Albanian campaign? Even Turkish Wikipedia calls it that! "II. Mehmed'in ilk Arnavutluk seferi"! Weird. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Because where and how the war was fought is unknown. It is only known as the first army that Mehmed sent to Albania. No source says that Mehmed took part in this war. Even the Wikipedia description. Keremmaarda (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• "Because where and how the war was fought is unknown."

Really, near Albania? How? Probably by means from that time period? Then prove Mehmed was elsewhere when the campaign was executed and then request a page move to something like "The Ottoman Albanian Campaign of 1452"?--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

How can I prove something that doesn't exist? Shouldn't you be proving that Mehmed was at war by providing me with resources? Aren't you a moderator? Why don't you search? Keremmaarda (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• "How can I prove something that doesn't exist?"

Then prove Mehmed was elsewhere when the campaign was executed.

• "Shouldn't you be proving that Mehmed was at war by providing me with resources?"

Should I? I have never edited that article.

• "Aren't you a moderator? Why don't you search?"

Are you not capable of critical thinking? Are you incapable of doing your own research? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Then do not get involved in matters that you do not regulate and do not know. If you are arguing that Mehmed was there, prove it with sources. If you have no idea about this subject, do not interfere with the editing of the page. Keremmaarda (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you, since you want to change what a GA article states(to repeat what I have said 4 times now). Judging from your lack of understanding, you should not edit English Wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hodgkinson's source quotes

Hello. You were asking for a quote from Hodgkinson's source to determine Mehmed II's location. I'll provide a quote instead. I checked Hodgkinson's source and the following is written on pp. 109–110: During the second phase the Turks, as enthusiastic as when the first charge began, even tried to break through the gate with their lances. But the walls still held. Murad saw that he was losing men pointlessly, for there was no hope of victory that day. He ordered the retreat to be sounded, and for the next two days held a council of his generals to decide what should be done next. One immediate precaution was to guard the camp against a further surprise attack. A force was placed at the point where the original attack had taken place that afternoon, in the hope that Scanderbeg would repeat his exploit and so be captured. Prince Mehmed stayed with them the whole of one night, but his ‘wild beast’ was equal to so :unsubtle a ruse.

What's more interesting though is the quote on p. 106: When spring arrived, the Sultan Murad II and his vast army moved westwards to destroy the ‘inexpugnable walls’ of Kruja. With it went the new weapons, the marks of Turkish technical superiority, the small artillery on the backs of the lunging camels and the supplies of brass and other metals from which the great guns were to be cast on the spot. And with these again a mass of crowbars, mattocks and pickaxes for undermining the walls. Each fighting man, and there may have been as many as 160,000 of them, brought with him provisions for several days so that he could feed himself on the march through the forests and mountains between Macedonia and the Adriatic plains. The march began on 5th April 1450. So it's actually about the first siege of Krujë. Nothing about 1452. I thought articles rated GA have been already fact-checked. StephenMacky1 (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I thought GA articles had to be fact-checked as well. So, that source does not provide any information concerning Mehmed's location during 1452. Cinderella157 did provide some information concerning infoboxes, along with the hows and whys for listing certain individuals. Sounds like the article needs a complete re-write with verifiable sources.

Once again, my sincerest thanks StephenMacky1! --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hi Kansas,

Hope you're doing well, and the weather isn't too bad. I have suspicions that a certain new editor might be a sockpuppet of a recently re-banned sockpuppeteer (User:LouisPhilippeCharles) in the area of Wikipedia I work on (early modern France/French early modern nobility).

My evidence is that this account started editing on mainspace a week after the latest sockpuppet was banned, and they seem to have the same focus of edits (unilateral moves of early modern French noble article titles), which is not something new editors tend to focus on.

I've reviewed the report process and it seems very complicated, so before I pursue it any further, would you say I have anything approaching a case here (you are far more knowledgable in the workings of Wikipedia policy than I)? Or am I reaching too deeply into speculation? Not mentioning the user in question as I don't want to besmirch them until I know whether I should actually be pursuing this. sovietblobfish (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

We did have triple digit heat for a week here and I am considering moving to Nebraska after I retire.

As for your suspected sockpuppet, if all they are doing is page moving, I would say that may not be enough for an SPI. So, you may need to wait for more evidence. Sorry I was not of much help. Stay safe where you are! --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That sounds terrible! I shall take your advice and wait, I suspect if there is grounds for one, a more experienced and well versed editor will make the first move anyway. sovietblobfish (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The first move did not take long to arrive, the account has now been banned as a sockpuppet of LouisPhilippeCharles. 22:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC) sovietblobfish (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That is good! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023

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: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

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) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Sutyarashi

Hi, i need your help. Can we add names of individuals who have multiple theories of origin, in a list for a particular social group on Wikipedia? User:Sutyarashi has been adding names of certain individuals who have no clear ethnic origin, in the list of notable 'Punjabi Muslims', [[36]]. Isn't that misleading? CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

People can identify with more than one ethnicity, and that's especially true for heterogeneous people like Punjabis. That's really a matter of reliability of the sources cited. Plus Wikipedia list articles do have same people on more than one article, and one can call it misleading only if sources cited are of poor quality or is unsourced. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There is different between having multiple ethnicities and having different theories of origin for historical individuals. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Guess who's back

[37] Beshogur (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Source

Hello @Kansas Bear. Do you happen to have this source with you to this day: "Tucker, Spencer C., ed. (2010). "April 14, 1395: Central Asia and Russia". A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East. Vol. One: ca. 3000 BCE–1499 CE. ABC-CLIO."? I'm struggling to find it online in the form of a pdf and happened to notice that you added it in the Battle of the Terek River. Best regards, WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Bear(no pun intended), with me. I'm currently at work at won't be home for another 6.5 hours. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

My thanks for your patience.

• "Second war between Toktamish and Tamerlane (continued): Battle of the Terek River. While Tamerlane is campaigning in Georgia, Toktamish attacks him. Tamerlane drives off his adversary and then pursues him north across the Caucasus. The decisive battle of the war occurs at the Terek River."
• "Toktamish is again close to victory. His cavalry attack the right flank and the center of Tamerlane's army, but some Hordian emirs desert Toktamish and join Tamerlane, allowing him to defeat the left flank of Toktamish's army and then win the battle. Toktamish is driven from the field."
• "Tamerlane pursues Toktamish up the Volga River Valley, westward into Ukraine, and then through much of central Russia, annihilating cities and massacring their inhabitants as he proceeds. Among the destroyed cities are both Astrakhan and Sarai, the capital of the Golden Horde. Tamerlane then sets up a vassal khan to rule the area. The Golden Horde never recovers." --"April 14, 1395: Central Asia and Russia", A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East, Volume: One: ca. 3000BCE-1499 CE, Spencer C. Tucker, page 316. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023

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 an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

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) 19:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Catharine of Bourbon

Hi Kansas,

Hope you're well. I recently encountered an article for someone called Catharine of Bourbon. I was a little confused by this, as that is not the spelling of the name I am used to. I have looked around at how other sites spell the name, seems to be Catherine as a rule, I have looked at French and Dutch Wikipedia, they spell the name 'catherine' and 'catharina' respectively.

I'm left with the conclusion that when this article was translated into English from Dutch, instead of making the name 'catherine' the author of the article chose to leave it at a halfway house, perhaps because there is already an article called catherine de bourbon.

However, to confirm this suspicion, I would need to have actually read some literature about this figure, which I have not done, do you have any books at your finger tips that might be able to shed some light on this? You seem to have quite an eclectic library! Thanks sovietblobfish (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I am doing well, Sovietblobfish. Hope things are good where you are.

A quick search, while I'm at work, brought up;

• Charles the Bold: The Last Valois Duke of Burgundy, Richard Vaughan, page 113;"..was happy to extend Burgundian influence over Guelders in these years by arranging for Adolf of Egmond's election to the Golden Fleece in 1461 and for his marriage in 1463 to Catherine of Bourbon.."

which would indicate Catherine not Catharine. I haven't been able, however, to connect Catherine to her father Charles or her mother Agnes through reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Hi Kansas.."

If you want, you can call me KB. Saves on typing.

Well I did find;

• Valois Burgundy, Richard Vaughan, page 61.

Page 61 has a family tree indicating Agnes marrying Charles and their children; Isabel, Louis, John II, Charles, and Catherine.

So you are quite correct concerning Catherine of Bourbon.

• "You seem to have quite an eclectic library!"

Probably due to buying books that interest me for the past 50 years.

In all seriousness, I own the previous Vaughan book but not the latter one, of which I have left you a link on archive.org. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick search :) I will move the article sovietblobfish (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

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 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

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) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Armenian names

Hello @Kansas Bear, I hope this message finds you well. Would you please explain your rationale for removing the Armenian variations of the names of various Armenian kings predating the 5th century? I understand you think its anachronistic, but how does it make sense to leave the Armenian construction Tigran Mets with no Armenian text whatsoever or reference to its language? As far as I can tell MOS:LEADLANG provides for the inclusion of "Relevant foreign-language names". I think the Armenian name of an Armenian king is relevant enough to warrant inclusion, especially if some sources (like the textbook The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times and Bournoutian's A Concise History of the Armenian People) prefer the Armenian form Tigran over the Greco-Roman one. Is there a way we can find a compromise? Best wishes, Revolution Saga (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Why should we include a written form of Armenian for any King of Armenia whose name was never written in Armenian and never used the written form of Armenian?

Tigran the Great was, prior to the Parthian civil war, a Parthian client-king, a Zoroastrian, and minted coins in Greek.

Artaxias I, used border stones, covered in Aramaic script, to separate villages and farms. The Artaxiads minted coins in Aramaic as well.

• "I think the Armenian name of an Armenian king.."

Whilst ignoring the facts that Armenian was not a written language during his reign, that the language used at his court was Greek, and he minted coins in Greek.

• "Is there a way we can find a compromise?"

Sure. We can use Greek, since Tigranes the Great used Greek on his coins. Unless you want to use Aramaic, which was also used on Artaxiad coins. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I concede that including the Armenian text in the intro without qualification could mislead some readers to think Armenian was a written language as the time. But there should at least be a clarifying note that says "Called Tigran (Տիգրան, also Metsn Tigran, Tigran Mets 'Tigran the Great') in Armenian." In any case, we shouldn't leave Tigran Mets there with no explanation or indication of its language. Revolution Saga (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The Latin form in the intro should not be there, in my opinion. As for "Tigran Met", how about a note next to it with the note containing the Armenian script and the explanation that this written form was used by "name of source" hundreds of years later. Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Your rationale is anachronism, but you did not address the foreign language rationale, which is very strong here. Tigranes and other pre-Mashtots monarchs are, regardless of language or religion, part of Armenian history and much has been written on them since the 5th century in Armenian. Their Armenian names, Tigran, Artashes, etc. are very much widely used in scholarly literature. Also, check the predecessors of Sejong the Great. ----Երևանցի ^talk 11:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• "but you did not address the foreign language rationale.."

The rationale of using a language that didn't exist in written form until the 5th century AD? I actually DID address the foreign language rationale, giving two possible languages: Greek and Aramaic. Guess that fell on deaf ears.

• "Tigranes and other pre-Mashtots monarchs are, regardless of language or religion, part of Armenian history and much has been written on them since the 5th century in Armenian."

Actually, the Artaxiad dynasty's usage of Greek and Aramaic is part of Armenian history. Their religion is also part of Armenian history. The shift from using these languages to using written Armenian is part of Armenian history.

• "...since the 5th century in Armenian."

Which is the crux of this conversation.

If an anachronistic form of a language can be used for individuals, dynasties, etc, that didn't use that language(written or otherwise), then any anachronistic form of any language can be used on any individuals, dynasties, etc. All one has to do is claim these individuals, dynasties, are part of their history. This would be an example.

• "Also, check the predecessors of Sejong the Great."

No idea who that is. Outside my area of interest. Although, I have yet to find a Roman emperor with the Italian version of their name. Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula. Pretty sure this is Italian history, odd. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

References

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry table

Hello Mr./Ms. Bear,

I noticed that the ancestry table I added to the page for Vladislaus I was removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladislaus%20I&diff=1188630134&oldid=1188628617). The stated reason in the edit summary was a lack of citations. However, the table I added was a summary of existing Wikipedia pages already linked to each other, no new info (and each page appears to be reputably cited). I've done this for multiple individuals, because I feel that it's helpful for understanding their relation to other historical figures. If that's not against any kind of rule, then I'd like to add the table back to Vladislaus' page. Let me know what you think. Thanks! EZStrathHuston (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is unsourced information. Wikipedia pages(existing or otherwise) can not be used to reference other Wikipedia articles. I see no reason for said information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and I agree. I've been wading through the talk page for Template:Ahnentafel and I had no idea what an issue this was. I'll be deleting the other tables that I've added. EZStrathHuston (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

thanks for your reverts on the Mongol Samara Bend article

my GOD - what has happened to that article?? I take my eyes off of it for a while and all sorts of nonsense pops up and off-the-cuff edits with no source whatsoever - just what some person "thinks" it should read - I worked very carefully with Peter Jackson and others on that article to get it into shape and out of the communist-written-era unobtainable source (papers locked away in Russia somewhere) - I may restore it back to 95% of what I had years ago, as this now reads like crap! HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

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 looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

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) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Hello Kansas Bear: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Hope you and yours are all doing well.

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Wikaviani! Happy Holidays to you! Stay safe! --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, Ealdgyth! Stay safe! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kansas Bear!

Happy New Year!

Kansas Bear,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks Mann Mann! Stay safe! --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Orion Nimrod's Turanist "Scythian broders" tried to make a putsch in Hungary

Here is the Google translation of the article about the event: https://www-hetek-hu.translate.goog/cikkek/online/fegyveres-hatalomatvetelre-keszult-egy-csoport-magyarorszagon?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=hu&_x_tr_pto=wapp

--Hefty-priced (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Another article about Scythian Coup attempt: https://hang-hu.translate.goog/kultura/krasznahorkai-laszlo-elore-latta-a-szkita-puccsot-161086?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=hu&_x_tr_pto=wapp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hefty-priced (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024

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 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

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) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024

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 and Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

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) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Old stuff but very concerning

I found this 4-yo comment on Reddit. As I said before, the source of attacks against you, @HistoryofIran and LouisAragon: is social media platforms like Discord, Reddit, and Twitter. I'm sure you are aware of it yourselves and you can find more stuff like that by searching your usernames on Reddit, Twitter, and other social media. I told HistoryofIran this before: When you see some strange or suspicious activity on some topics, look for the evidences outside of Wikipedia. A good example was this user. He runs and owns this Twitter account and this website. If you remember his edits, he cited his very own book for his revisionist edits. I myself dealt with this dude for a long time so I know how this kind of ethno-nationalistic disruption works. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not really involved with reddit, discord, twitter, or other social media. I have seen reddit posts claiming I'm a French nationalist and/or Kurdish, while some silly little sockpuppet stated, "Kansas Bear, who pretends to be an American." All of which just proves their ability to do factual research is inept and puerile. No wonder they can't do historical research! I guess all my editing on List of Papal bulls and rewriting individual articles on Popes makes me Catholic!?

Not to belittle your concerns, Mann Mann, but I seriously doubt admins could even begin to care what is said on any social media board. Considering the personal attacks directed at me on Wikipedia(the non-American comment is actually quite amusing), what is stated on some social media wouldn't even matter. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For just being the best. :) Noorullah (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what I've done to deserve this Noorullah21, but thank you.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024

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 and Nick-D look at four recent works

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) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Charles de Bourbon, count of Clermont

Hello Kansas, hope you're keeping well.

You came to me lately with a Croÿ puzzle, it felt only fair to return the favour :) I was reading the article for Peter II, Duke of Bourbon lately, and came across this bizarre passage

"On 10 May 1491, the pair finally acquired an heir of their own, a daughter, Suzanne (Anne had an earlier pregnancy in 1476, but about this existed contradictory accounts: some say the baby was miscarried or been stillborn, but others reported that a living son was born, Charles, styled Count of Clermont in 1488 as was customary for the heir of the Duchy of Bourbon, who died aged 22 in 1498 and was buried in the Abbey of Souvigny, Auvergne)."

What a bizarre situation. Either the king's daughter and her husband had a son who lived to the age of 22 and became the count of Clermont, or they had a stillborn. Our evidence for each side, a series of genetics websites.

There must be a better source out there that can clear this up properly, a grandson of the king of France cannot live to 22 years old (and be granted the honorary title of count of Clermont) at the end of the 15th century without us having some real evidence for it. Can you help? sovietblobfish (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC) sovietblobfish (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you Sovietblobfish! I see you've been busy on a French Religious War article and am quite impressed with your work. I am doing quite well, got a pay raise and getting another one in April, and am on vacation this week.

So far, I found:

• "L'annee 1498, le jeune fils de ce Duc, nomme Charles de Bourbon, & communement appele le comte de clermont(2), lui mourut, &, par sa mort, causa une grande tristesse en la Maison de bourbon." -- Histoire des Ducs de Bourbon et des Comtes de Forez, Tome 2, Jean-Marie de La Mure, Chez Potier, Libraire, Quai Malaquais, 1868, page 447.
• (2) "C'est ce petit Prince qui est represente avec sa mere & sa soeur Suzanne dans le vitrail de Sainte Catherine de la cathedrale de Moulins." --Histoire des Ducs de Bourbon et des Comtes de Forez, Tome 2, Jean-Marie de La Mure, page 447.

This was oddly worded with 1498 mention?

• "A l'avenement de Louis XII, ayant une fille et n'esperant plus avoir de fils, elle avait obtenu de Louis l'annulation du pacte qui assurait a la couronne l'heritage de Bourbon, si le duc Pierre II, son mari, mourait sans enfant male (1498)." --Histoire de France, Tome VIII, Henri Martin, 1858, page 37.

Pretty much so far. I will keep digging.--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kansas, Glad to hear you're doing so well! Yes its quite a long project I've been working on since October. I am hoping to publish it before the end of April, though it is far too long to remain as a single article and I will be cutting it into three articles:

French Crisis of 1559-1562

The First French War of Religion (1562-1563)

The First French War of Religion in the provinces

I am looking forward to returning to more bitesize projects, though my library is now approaching the size where no project is bitesize haha. Biography articles that a couple of years ago would have been single footnote stubs, I could now produce several thousand words on.

Anyway, my thanks for finding these texts, it is curious how even these more real sources remain somewhat vague. sovietblobfish (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I now have access to my copy of 'Anne de France: Gouverner au féminin à la Renaissance' which has the benefit of being a far more recent work (2022) and have looked through it for references to Charles de Bourbon, comte de Clermont. No mentions in the index, nor in a brief flick through could I see any mention of him that might have escaped the index. Of course doesn't mean he didn't exist, might just be too tangential to the authors study of the queen given he isn't supposed to have made it past 22. sovietblobfish (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit-warring on Aleppo

Did you leave a warning about the Aleppo edit war on the talk page of the user who started to revert? HD86 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

So, now you want to talk? To repeat what you ignored on your talk page;

• "Also, since you took the information from the Ali Janbulad article, why didn't you add the reference(s) from that article as well? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You've had the opportunity to change the situation, instead you chose to continue to edit war. You could have added reference(s), you chose not to. You've had 3 chances to include references with your edit, instead you called Aintabli "so lazy and dumb", compared them to idiots, and accused them of vandalism. None of which were necessary or productive. I'll let the admins deal with you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

A person who insists on removing good, referenced info can be accused of vandalism. Why is this not vandalism? In any case, this is disruptive editing. Obviously the info is referenced. A link to another wiki page may not be perfect referencing but you can't claim this is unreferenced info.

And by the way, I certainly added much more info and citations to that article than you did, so it would have been better if you copied the references yourself at least to show that you are a positive contributer. That would have been a better use of your time.--HD86--

So you're not capable of adding references? How sad.

• "That would have been a better use of your time."

You could have included reference(s) from your initial edit, and none of this would have happened. Instead, you've wasted your time spewing personal attacks. No thanks. I have no need to interact with someone so belligerent, they can't even added references when they edit. Done here. Don't post here again. Further posts by you will be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Usually, a warning would be dropped on someone's talk page when it is more than 2 reverts per WP:EW. But it is alarming that the conflict rises from your interpretation of a core policy WP:VERIFY. Instead of expecting others to cite or verify your additions and calling them lazy, idiot, and dumb when they don't [38], it would be much more constructive to just copy-paste the reference if there is one. Aintabli (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Children of Charles Martwl

Hieronymus (Jerome) (c. 722 - after 782), was the son of Charles Martel and his mistress, and so was the half-brother of Bernard, Abbot of St. Quentin, a key confidant of Louis the Pious, and Remigius, the third Archbishop of Rouen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieronymus,_son_of_Charles_Martel

Remigius (or Remi) (died 772)[1] was the illegitimate son of Charles Martel and an unknown mistress. He was also the third archbishop of Rouen from 755 to 772.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigius_of_Rouen

With Ruodhaid, with whom he had:

Bernhard (c. 720–787), Hieronymus (c. 722 – after 782), Remigius (d. 771) archbishop of Rouen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel

Clearly states that they are 1/2 brothers in one regard.

So why the reverse?

What "reverse"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Central Asia

Thanks for your helpful points. The interesting part is that user stopped editing since 27 March. Don't know what he expected from the drama he started. No edits by me on Central Asia after his reports, and he still refused to collaborate with you and other editors. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome Mann Mann! Stay safe! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024

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, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

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) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Alinja

Hello, we have a disagreement on the article about the siege of Alinja, want to discuss it? 109.242.73.191 (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh so now you want a discussion? After you changed through multiple edits(back on 21 December 2023)[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] the article to emphasize a minor skirmish which occurred during a siege that lasted over a decade?? Using an unreliable source(Zaza Anchabadze), blatantly ignoring the fact that multiple reliable sources refer to a siege at Alinja, then just recently[48] you simply removed, without any explanation at all, what you didn't like to push a non-neutral POV. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. You are here to extol the greatness of Georgia, the Georgian kingdom, and how Georgia was oh-so victorious against everyone. Silly nationalism 101, brought to you by multiple IPs of a blocked user:Caucasian127 and გიორგი172.

Sorry to do all this but the article was created for the Battle of Alinja (1398) and I used Zaza Anchabadze's source for "the Georgian king refused to return the hostages on the grounds that this would be against Caucasian traditions", also when i asked for a discussion i wasn't trying to change to georgia victory and etc, if you don't want to discuss ok then i was just trying to expand the Siege of Alinja, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.73.191 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Sorry to do all this but the article was created for the Battle of Alinja (1398) and I used Zaza Anchabadze's source for "the Georgian king refused to return the hostages on the grounds that this would be against Caucasian traditions"..."

The article("Battle of Alinja") didn't reflect what had actually occurred. With no siege starting in 1387/1388 there would have been no skirmish(so called "battle") at all. So to ignore a 14 yr siege(which is what this is called by multiple sources) to highlight some minor skirmish is POV editing.

• "also when i asked for a discussion i wasn't trying to change to georgia victory and etc, if you don't want to discuss ok then i was just trying to expand the Siege of Alinja.."

So you're just going to ignore what I've said. Got it.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it, I'd just change something and if I made a mistake, you'd reverted 109.242.73.191 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about ignoring what is written. One. More. Time.

The article("Battle of Alinja") didn't reflect what had actually occurred. With no siege starting in 1387/1388 there would have been no skirmish(so called "battle") at all. So to ignore a 14 yr siege(which is what this is called by multiple sources) to highlight some minor skirmish is POV editing. Especially since the siege continued until 1401!

Compared to your edits: 21 December 2023,28 February 2024, 13 April 2024. Three times you've tried to distort the article. Consider this your last warning. Next time, I'll contact an admin. The evidence I have right here on my talk page is enough to get you blocked.--Kansas Bear (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

ok sorry to bother you 109.242.73.191 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, I went ahead and blocked this IP editor after yet another batch of disruptive edits. I'm wondering about these drafts, these "Battles of", which seems to be all the rage for various places around the world. Is there a sock who was in the habit of doing that in this area? Drmies (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/გიორგი172/Archive. I reported, at the time, three IPs in the last SPI, but was told, "I don't see enough evidence to check or block David IV 1121 based on what you've written here, and after taking a brief look at the account, there seem to be some differences in their editing style. Feel free to re-file if you have additional evidence, but I am archiving this filing for now." So I guess that means they checked the evidence against the IPs?

The IPs seem to gravitate around the article:List of Georgian battles, List of wars involving Georgia (country), and articles about Georgian monarchs.

User:გიორგი172created:

• Battle of Chkheri 2023-10-06
• Siege of Alinja 2023-10-05
• Siege of Tbilisi (627–628) 2023-10-05
• Battle of Niakhura
  

while their sockpuppet Caucasian127 created:

• Siege of Ani (1124) · (Deleted)
• Ayyubid–Georgian wars · (Deleted)
• Siege of Archesh · (Deleted)

I'm guessing that the IP you blocked might be the same person as 109.242.76.21. Who also has edited the List of wars involving Georgia (country) --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI, the IP188.73.235.162 created Draft:Siege of Tbilisi (1038–1040),Draft:Siege of Garni,Draft:Siege of Shamkor,Siege of Ani (1161).

The IP109.242.74.38 created Siege of Ani (1124). --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's an interesting coincidence. You blocked IP109.242.73.191 and Caucasian127 asks for an unblock! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Ottoman battle

Hi!

Again an user is obsessed about an Ottoman battle, Siege of Güns, making edit war, removing many academic sources, because he does not like the numbers. The boring pattern: if the Ottomans lost a battle some users want to decrease the number of Ottomans, or even if Ottomans won, those users also pretend that mighty Ottoman Empire won every battle with "100 soldiers" against 100,000 enemy soldiers.

I showed you because we many times experienced the same thing. What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If the editor is obsessed about battle figures, simply post the figures for the battle along with the references on the article talk page, and go from there. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)