User Talk:Kansas Bear
Get User Talk:Kansas Bear essential facts below. View Videos or join the User Talk:Kansas Bear discussion. Add User Talk:Kansas Bear to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
User Talk:Kansas Bear
JSTOR This user has access to JSTOR through The popflock.com resource Library



Happy New Year!

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


Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles, Duke of Mayenne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catholic League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anne de Pisseleu d'Heilly

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anne de Pisseleu d'Heilly you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for message. The problem is that that user deletes information which I put without proper justification accusing me with POV. Could you please help me how I can complain it? Two different IPs continuously changing and deleting my references without any proper justification. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirhasanov (talk o contribs) 20:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anne de Pisseleu d'Heilly

The article Anne de Pisseleu d'Heilly you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Anne de Pisseleu d'Heilly for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination of Jovian

Hi, I don't think the article is worth passing a review right now. Although he only reigned 8 months, Jovian was a Roman emperor and there is a lot of content missing from the article. For example, you can't talk of something as important as the restoration of Christianity in just a short paragraph. I also expect to see sections on his family background, coinage, death (don't put in a mere footnote that there was a suspicion of murder), etc. There is no mention on his religious policy and the Synod Jovian organised in Antioch (see here). You have a good bibliography; these books must tell much more than what's currently in the article. I therefore suggest you withdraw the nomination. Take also a look at Julian the Apostate for ideas on expanding the article. T8612 (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

So be it.--Kansas Bear (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


I have expanded the article to some extent, but there are a few mis-steps that I felt I should address.
  • "don't put in a mere footnote that there was a suspicion of murder"
Actually I will, because of all the sources that are listed only one mentions Ammianus's claim of strangulation, while numerous others mention suffocation.
  • "There is no mention on his religious policy and the Synod Jovian organised in Antioch.."
Did you read the source you provided? First sentence states, "The synod held by Meletius and some of his followers at Antioch in 363..", and Elm, page 424,"Thus in the fall of 363, they gathered in a synod in Antioch under the leadership of Meletius...". Per Controlling Contested Places: Late Antique Antioch and the Spatial Politics of Religious Controversy, by Shepardson, page 17;"..Bishop Meletius hosted a council to rally support for his branch of Antiochene Christianity...".
Actually you should take a look at Theodosius III that just passed GA. The Julian the Apostate article, which is not GA, is replete with outdated historiography(Gibbon) and unreliable sources(Encyclopædia Britannica Online, Avner Falk, John Julius Norwich). --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello @Kansasbear. i have read your message before regarding my mention battle of Mutah in Wikaviani page. just to straighten up misunderstanding here i did not meant to canvassing some certain POV there, why i mentioning to Itaqallah since i have read the past discussion regarding the article that Itaqallah had certain experience regarding history of that battle. second reason is active in Islamic History portal. so i want to asking his opinion of my draft of several improvement to the article before submitting. that's all sire.

thx before and grats from me. Ahendra (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Muhiy369's edit warring

Hi, this is Muhiy369. Saw your message. Let's discuss about the page Mughal-Maratha Wars. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhiy369 (talk o contribs) 15:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest not edit warring or removing references and referenced information. Make your case on the talk page with sources to back up your revision. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

Hello @Kansasbear. I am not in revert war but preventing misrepresentation of sources. The sources being presented are not about the article. Afghan-Sikh Wars but for Battle of Jarmund. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I have made the article neutral as the IP address wants. Hopefully no more reverts. But its not fair but will be reasonable.

WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sikh Territorial Gains, keeping article neutral

Hello @Kansasbear. Sorry to bother you but just wanted to bring to your attention that if you look at the last revision by CambridgeBayWeather. It was the last mutual and neutral decision as per article that the result was Sikh Territorial Gain instead of SIkh Victory or Afghan Victory or Stalemate. Hope there is no misunderstanding. Just keeping the article neutral for all. Have a good day sir.

First off, learn to sign your posts.
I am guessing this is user:WorldWikiAuthorOriginal who is blocked for sockpuppetry. I see nothing on the article talk page that supports your version. CambridgeBayWeather protected the article due to "Persistent disruptive editing", not as a sign of consensus. Also, if this is user:WorldWikiAuthorOriginal, I suggest you stop editing and wait for your block to expire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not the user you mentioned and never had an account. I have been editor since 2018 on various articles. You can see my history and have never been blocked. While back I read the article and after going through whole article, it clearly showed territorial gains and had the result originally as Sikh Victory. But IseeFire1001 same as IP 120... had an issue it seems if you go through history and the user you mentioned earlier changed the result from Sikh Victory to Sikh Territorial Gains. I have also added the discussion in the talk page which eventually you could have done too. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.85 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Seems you can not form consensus and can not bring any sources to back your claim. All you can do is edit war what user:WorldWikiAuthorOriginal added to the article(without consensus or sources) and claim you are not that user. Continue to edit war unsourced information into the article, since that is all you can do.
  • "I have also added the discussion in the talk page which eventually you could have done too."
You added nothing. What you added was not a discussion, just your opinion with no sources to support your opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
You are clearly not going to be part of understanding which seems due to your own personal views and sentiments. Article clearly states what the result is. Consensus was already done if you look at the previous history while back but you are ignoring it and reverting due to your own personal point of view. So end of discussion. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.106 (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
You are clearly are pushing your personal POV into the article since you have ZERO sources to support your personal opinion. You think you can arbitrarily decide when consensus was reached with zero discussion and zero sources! That is not how popflock.com resource works and when you have no discussion and no sources to support your personal views and sentiments, you edit war! These are the facts and your personal views are what you think forms consensus. So end of discussion! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead with a block of Special:Contributions/199.82.243.0/25. Do you perceive any significance in the WHOIS pointing to fedex.com in Tennessee? I guess you think this is WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk · contribs). Let me know if you think other IP blocks might be justified. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
IF what the IP says can be trusted they are not WorldWikiAuthorOriginal, although another pro-Sikh editor Jaaandip whose editing is similar to WorldWikiAuthorOriginal, has reappeared(Jaandip). If the IP restarts their disruptive editing, I will let you know. Thanks.
Jaaandip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Its a pity these IPs and editors can not understand what original research is and that if another editor opposes their OR that does not mean that editor has an agenda! smh --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kansas

Hello, Kansas: I was wondering if we could come to an agreement with you regarding the matter of the Baron of Loughmoe. I do not want to get into a revert war, and was just wondering if the reason you deleted my paragraph was because there were no citations showing that Richard the Lionheart's ancestors? Or is it that it is my own theory, that it would have gone back to Vikings? Or is it the "Porcelet" matter, the family from Spain? Many thanks, JuliusCaesar19 -- Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliusCaesar16 (talk o contribs) 02:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to add information to an article, then bring a reliable source that supports said information. If there is no reliable source that supports said information, then it should not be added to an article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Kansas

Thank you for posting, I wanted to write the reason for posting someone else's talk page. I would also like to say that I haven't spend time on wikipedia. I don't know most of the rules.I think you read the subject, there is no need to explain much. I'm a little disappointed about this topic. What's going on is actually a little bit awkward. I added a few visuals and additional information at the beginning, few people found this exaggerated. I approved them, I reduced the visuals I added.They did again not like the update that I made this time, I just added one picture for final time they did not like it either. I am not sharing wrong information here I am presenting information and they do not like it. Then I couldn't stop asking myself Is this a private forum? or Is that an exclusion? There is a subject of Turkish drink. They put an Armenian drink next to it okay super why not respect. They don't even let me put the turkish version. See all other languages of this page there are many visuals. They say you can not put a picture without discussion on talk page and they do not respect my opinion. They have right to say NONSENSE about my thick paragraph but my criticism is insulting them wow cool. Let's come to another topic why i asked for help because i dont have much experience in popflock.com resource and i search rondom guy who know Turkic history and stuff,i wrote on his talk page (Can you help me please ? I have not much experience on wiki. Someone writes according to his head about Doogh (the drink).I didnt know are these things happen so or not. I am so disgusted that I felt like im in private forum then a worldwide Encyclopedia. I'm wondering now what kinda insult did i do know by writing this here. -_- -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Cengizsogutlu (talk o contribs) 23:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Anushtegin Gharchai

Hi Kansas Bear i see that you have improved the wording of this article but i dont understand why the specific Turkic tribes are not part of the article itself ? You have redirected turkic to the notes which mention that information but can we not include that in the article itself ? I would appreciate your input on this ThankyouKami2018 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The sentence as you left it:
  • "Of either Khalaj, Qipchaq or Cigil Turkic origin, Anushtegin was originally a Turkic slave of the rulers of Gharchistan, known as the Shars."
Repetitious language, which was not an improvement. AND, the source used states;
  • " Kafeso?lu has surmised that he was possibly of ?igil or ?ala? Turkish origin, while Z. V. Togan put forward the view that he was of Qipchaq, Qan?lï or Uighur Turkish stock."
So by moving the information to a note, it is still in the article and by adding what the source actually states(not what appears to be a modified version), the information is actually correct and the sentence in question is no longer repetitious nonsense.
In a side note, my edit summary would have been more explicit, but my cat Mortis jumped on my keyboard. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


Vandalism by Kami2018

Hello, I'm writing this message to you to draw your attention to activities of one of the users who goes by the name kami2018. This (kami2018) account engages in war edits. I have observed that whenever any user reverts his edits or makes changes to the edits he has made such as in the case Bangash or Ahmadzai (wazir clan) Kami2018 not only reverts them but also uses rather an aggressive tone in info bar. For example he made an edit to Ahmadzai (wazir clan) writing that '[this tribe] lives on border between Birman valley and Kurram valley' even though the source explicitly mentions that Ahmadzai were originally based in Birman valley. You can check the source by typing in Ahmadzai in the search bar & download the doc. This was reverted later by Yamaguchi (another Administrator on WP). But this is one example of his nonsensical behavior. He has done the same to the page of Bangash tribe. According to the attached (Iranica encyclopedia) reference they were settled in gardez in Afghanistan until 10 CE. Afterwards they migrated to their current location in Kurram valley. But because it was changed by an IP citing the reason that the source mentions Gardez,(which it does, please look that up) and that 'Gardez' was removed by 'Saladin1987' (now a banned user), Kami2018 (who, it appears, previously operated under the username 'saladin1987') reverted the edit. Kami2018 continues to use WP platform to promote his own personal opinions, which are by any account biased and obviously nationalistic (anti Afghan and pro Pakistan). He randomly removes 'Afghan' "Afghanistan" and Iranic peoples" and other such terms related to Afghans/Pashtuns/Afghanistan from articles and inserts 'Pakistan' even if the doesn't mention Pakistan. Furthermore, many of his edits as I have checked are reverted and he has been warned already. I dont know who to reach out to so I'm writing here. (because I dont know the technical aspects of using WP which is why I haven't formally joined this community.) I request you to PLEASE look into this and take an action!

I'm here to inform you that I read the posts you left on the said account holder's talk page and the response you received.

First off, Muhammadzai page that kami2018 talks about is absolutely wrong. The cited source mentions 'Afghanistan' which was changed to ' Zhob' Pakistan by 'Saladin1987' years ago. The edit by Saladin1987 (now banned and apparently active under a new user name that is I believe is kami2018) was reverted. I request you to read the source yourself. The source mentions Afghanistan.

As far as Amir Kror Suri is concerned, he was a legendary figure in Pashtun folklore (not a real Amir Suri) in Ghor and he has been called 'King of Ghor' in the Pashtun epic Pata Khazana. Ofcourse Amir Kror Suri and Amor Suri are not the same because Amir Suri was the actual ruler from Ghor who went on to establish Ghorid Empire in 8 CE. This is written in the very next sentence only if Kami2018 has bothered to read that.

Furthermore Kami2018 mentions Durrani tribe of Pashtuns. Sir, Durranis, historically known as Abdali, are primarily found in southern Afghanistan which is mentioned in the very article and a reference is cited as well. Anyone can read that. Just to brief you a little. The two major tribal confederates among Pashtuns are Ghilzais and Durranis who are primarily found in Afghanistan, NOT Pakistan. The so called '70%' Pashtuns living in Pakistan has nothing to do with the tribal division between Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you're interested to know further, you can read up on this. Furthermore, the Turi tribe tribe is a sub-tribe of Khogyani tribe which itself is a Karlani tribe. Please see Khogyani tribe. Kami2018 doesn't read cited references nor does he know anything about Pashtun tribes. His reason for removing Khogyani is that it's not Karlani when actually Khogyani is a Karlani tribe while the Turi tribe is sub-division of Khogyani tribe. In other words Turi is karlani but a sub tribe of Khogyani.

Please read further as I provide proof of kami2018's disruptive behaviour.

There are many more examples of Kami2018 adding information without adding a source:

There are countless examples of Kami2018 adding info to Pashtun articles without adding reference or adding info contrary to what the cited reference states.

Also check out his talk page. See these examples of warning which Kami2018 removed from his talk page

https://en.m.www.popflock.com/learn?s=Special:MobileDiff/951212271

Here he blames an IP which he also mentioned earlier for removing content that was without reference. Kami2018 here is warned by Yamaguchi for doing that. Kami2018 gets personal with other users who revert his foul edits or add/remove information that Kami2018 doesn't approve of. (SEE here: https://en.m.www.popflock.com/learn?s=Special:MobileDiff/950382631)

Yet another example of Kami2018 being admonished for his disruptive behaviour (https://en.m.www.popflock.com/learn?s=Special:MobileDiff/950382595) Strangelt he removes all these warnings he receives.

And here again yet another example (https://en.m.www.popflock.com/learn?s=Special:MobileDiff/924691842)

At the end I would reiterate what I wrote earlier, Kami2018 is driven by his nationalistic instincts to remove information to disrupt WP articles on Pashtuns and Afghanistan. He is clearly anti-Afghan sentiments are visible through vandalism of Pashtun pages.

As an administrator I hope you will take action in light of examples I've provided you here.

Regards

?
  • "As an administrator I hope you will take action in light of examples I've provided you here."
I am not an administrator, I have never presented myself as an administrator, nor do I want to be an administrator. I would suggest you take your concerns to popflock.com Resource: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, i really appreciate your involvement in this. I have replied on the Administrator page [[1]] with my explanations along with references to where IP has used abusive language towards not only me or a particular user but to the whole community. I would appreciate if you could have a look at that and respond accordingly. Thankyou Kami2018 (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Your insistence on "sources" and other unfair behaviour

Hello Kansas Bear, Just wanted to let you know that even though it seems you've been an editor on popflock.com resource for so long, you haven't learned much. You keep insisting people provide sources when half of this platform is full of unsourced information and half-truths. As if all of the content is sourced... You would need to delete half the content if you were to insist on your illogical demands. Be fair and don't be a jerk. Regards mate, -176.54.7.80 (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

popflock.com Resource: NPA, popflock.com Resource: TENDENTIOUS, popflock.com Resource: Verifiability, popflock.com Resource: LEAD, popflock.com Resource: Harassment.--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jovian (emperor)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jovian (emperor) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jovian (emperor)

The article Jovian (emperor) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jovian (emperor) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jovian (emperor)

The article Jovian (emperor) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Jovian (emperor) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Congrats !

For your amazing job on Jovian ! Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Wikaviani! Stay safe and healthy! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Seconding this! -TheseusHeLl (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, TheseusHeL1! Sorry I forgot to email and check up on you during the crazy times on this planet. Take care! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Will do. You, too! -TheseusHeLl (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice not left by thread starter

Information icon There is currently a discussion at popflock.com Resource: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hell on earth with u/HistoryOfIran. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Antoine, Duke of Lorraine

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Antoine, Duke of Lorraine you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Antoine, Duke of Lorraine

The article Antoine, Duke of Lorraine you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Antoine, Duke of Lorraine for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Improving a section

Hi. I really think Massagetae#History is confusing and misleading especially if you compare it with this summary/conclusion from same article on Iranica:

  • "Somewhat strange is the localization of the Massagetae in Ptolemy's Geography 6.10.2 in Margiana, and still more in 6.13.3, where he calls them a Saka tribe along the Askatánkas mountains, i.e., Hindu Kush and Karakorum. In the end, various Byzantine authors use the name of the Massagetae in a quite archaizing manner for Huns, Turks, Tatars, and related peoples (see Moravcsik, pp. 183f.), what has no relevance, however, for ancient times."

Massagetae =/= Hun but the current revision of article does not clarify it. Can you rewrite that section or add some materials from the Iranica article? --Wario-Man (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It will take some time. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wario-Man: Ok. What you have quoted really does not have anything to do with history, it is more about ethnic affiliation. Was it the history section you wanted re-written. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The article cited some quotes by some Byzantine authors without summarizing them. That's the reason why I quoted that part from Iranica article. Even an IP-user added the text[2] but another user called it "unnecessary" and reverted it.[3] My point is the current revision is confusing and misleading for the readers. They may associate Massagetae with Huns. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm. Ok. Let me see what I can do. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Wario-Man: I went ahead and moved the non-historical information from the History section to sections under Possible connections to other ancient peoples. I will keep searching for information related to history for the Massagetae. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Good. Can you add Iranica summary/quote too? --Wario-Man (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Definitely. Sorry I forgot that part. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Good job, thanks! --Wario-Man (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The Battle of Saint-Omer

Hi Kansas Bear. I'm the last editor of the Battle of Saint-Omer the source does mention 8000 of Robert's force as being "dead", not 8000 killed, wounded or captured as the total number of casualties is unknown.(212.195.193.31 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC))

And you also added "Unknown wounded or captured". Do you have a source for that? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

do you have any interest in the Hulegu article at this point?

I have edited the "Siege of Baghdad/Sack of Baghdad" article over the past few days to update it for accuracy & added references. Now, it is in conflict with the Hulegu article's section on it. IMO, the best thing to do is to trim that section considerably, and leave the link to the expanded sub-article. Would you be amenable to an edit of that nature? Thanks.50.111.50.197 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Are you, user:HammerFilmFan?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not edited Hulagu Khan or Siege of Baghdad (1258) since 2015.
Have you checked the source given? Runciman, Steven (1987). A History of the Crusades. Cambridge University Press, page 307? That source, volume III to be precise, does not state 300,000.
You may need to bring me up to speed? How am I involved in this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Just that you were one of the last people on the TP for that article. If this article is not on your 'radar' these days, I understand. 50.111.50.197 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
GAAHH! Sigh - I assumed. There is no figure on that page (for the online edition, anyway) of the size of the army. I will fix it.50.111.18.161 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
The figure came from a website - while not a blog, it isn't all that scholarly - and doesn't list what sources were used. 'This article appeared on pages 24-33 of the July/August 2007 print edition of Saudi Aramco World.' I'll try to track down a paper in my files that gives a better figure. If one assumes that the 150,000 figure of the army that Mongke set up for Hulegu is the extreme upper limit of the force that crossed the Tigris, and garrisons were left along the way at Baghdad, etc., then there were less than 150,000 at the point of the submission of Damascus.50.111.18.161 (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I would avoid any sources off the internet and stick to published sources(books, journals, etc). As for the Runciman source, it was not written properly so it took time to find the correct volume and once I did I verified the source made no mention of "300,000". --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samanid Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Arina

I think the best would be no mention of Achaemenid Empire in the opening section, (it is already mentioned in detail among other empires down below.) As it indicates (wrongly) that ariana was "always" an eastern province of persian empire which is technically wrong. Hope the positive changes are made. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:C56C:B570:876C:1677 (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank You

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Hey Kansas Bear Thank you for helping me with my page Isabelle de Beauvau http://www.popflock.com/learn?s=Isabelle_de_Beauvau It was very much appreciated and I would love to work together in the future

Rajputudor (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Add matter in meer jumla2

I have source iam the descendant of sufi master to meerjumla 2 Syed shabbiralam (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. popflock.com resource is written using published reliable sources, not personal opinion or knowledge. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

User_talk:Kansas_Bear
 



 



 
Music Scenes