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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

	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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply] 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)Reply[reply]

		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)Reply[reply]

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

---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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 teamReply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 19:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

• "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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

	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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• " 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)Reply[reply]

" 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

	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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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. Brill. 24: 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)Reply[reply]

"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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

		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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• "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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• "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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

"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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

• "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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

"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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

• 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• "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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• "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.^[1][2] 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

"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)Reply[reply]

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

• "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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• "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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• FYI, WP:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

• "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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]