User Talk: Kansas Bear

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

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

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History ↗ newcomer of the year ↗ and military historian of the year ↗ awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here ↗ and here ↗ respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2024 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2024|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Happy New Username

I thought you left WP. I miss KB but the new username is cool and unique. Keep it up! --Mann Mann (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

:I'm still here. Yeah, it was time for a name change. Thanks. Stay safe Mann Mann!--Paramandyr (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

New Username!

Every couple of days I like to check in on the editors I know, see what they're working on and I was shocked that typing in my usual sequence only directed me towards a sockpuppet! Cool to see a a new name :) sovietblobfish (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

::Yeah, after 18 yrs, I felt it was time for a change. Stay safe Sovietblobfish!--Paramandyr (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 223, November 2024

{| style="width: 100%;"
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" |
{|
| 250px|link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News|alt=Full front page of The Bugle ↗
| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div>
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">

Project news: ''From the editors; awards and honours; contest results ↗''

Articles: ''Last month's new featured and A-class content ↗''

Book review: ''Hawkeye7 looks at battles of Operation Veritable in 1945 ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>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) 12:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
</div>

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

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History ↗ newcomer of the year ↗ and military historian of the year ↗ awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here ↗ and here ↗ respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace ↗ useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox ↗. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal ↗ when they've been previously warned. Thank you. / <span style="color:#EE2323; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">'''RemoveRedSky'''</span> <span style="color:#EE2323"><sup>'''(t)'''</sup></span> 14:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Io Saturnalia!

{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | 250px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, Saturnalia ↗!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | 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) 15:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|}

:Thanks, Ealdgyth. Stay safe. --Paramandyr (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for edit warring ↗ and violating the three-revert rule ↗, as you did at :Robert de Quincy ↗. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes ↗ and seek consensus ↗. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution ↗, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection ↗.</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks ↗, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</div></div>

:Thanks Bbb23, after 18 yrs my very first block is from you!
:FYI: I used to go by Kansas Bear. Have a great weekend and stay safe! --Paramandyr (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::I remember you. I didn't know you'd changed your username; any reason why? Even without knowing who you were, I didn't like blocking you, but you violated 3RR and your reverts were not exempt per WP:3RRNO ↗. You really shouldn't bring a report to AN3 complaining that another user violated 3RR when you yourself have also done so. Anyway, the block will expire before Xmas (if you celebrate that). Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:*"''I didn't know you'd changed your username; any reason why?''"
:::I was tired of how Chicago Bears were playing for the umpteenth year.
:*"''I didn't like blocking you''"
:::Its all good. I'm not taking it personal. You're a one hell of an Admin, and I honestly appreciate that. Besides, now I can do more research. :)
:*"''but you violated 3RR and your reverts were not exempt per WP:3RRNO ↗.''"
:::Would you believe it was for the greater good? The editor in question is writing WP:OR ↗ and doesn't respond to talk page conversations(per Ealdgyth, BusterD, and myself).
:*"''You really shouldn't bring a report to AN3 complaining that another user violated 3RR when you yourself have also done so.''"
:::Yeah, I probably lost count.
:*"''Anyway, the block will expire before Xmas (if you celebrate that). Take care.''"
:::Well, this year I'm avoiding the family dramah and staying in Lawrence. Take care Bbb23! --Paramandyr (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|Would you believe it was for the greater good? The editor in question is writing WP:OR ↗ and doesn't respond to talk page conversations(per Ealdgyth, BusterD, and myself).}} Yes, I believe that. Actually, at a glance, it looks like the user ''does'' respond to others on their Talk page, just not, uh, responsively.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 224, December 2024

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 Franco-Prussian War ↗''

Op-ed: ''Nick-D visits the Swiss Air Force Museum ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>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) 12:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
</div>

SELJUK WARS LİST ARTICLE

There are many missing battles such as Battle of Nishapur (1038), Battle of Vaspurakan (1046), Siege of Ani (1064), First Georgian Campaign (1064), Mangyshlak Campaign (1065), Battle of Caesarea (1067) and Second Georgian Campaign (1068). Can you please add them? Because you created the page and I don't know how to program. There is a possibility that I may break the page. That's why I'm asking you for this. Kartal1071 (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:Do you have reliable secondary sources ↗ in English for battle of Nishapur 1038, Vaspurakan 1046, Ani 1064, Caesarea 1067? I won't add campaigns since those aren't singular battles. --Kansas Bear 20:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Source: English Wikipedia. Some of the wars I write about here have their own pages. The others are on the Wikipedia Alp Arslan page. I suppose you would also consider the articles on Wikipedia to be reliable, right? Kartal1071 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Go and take a look. Only the Mangışlak Campaign is mentioned in the Turkish Wikipedia. Apart from that, all the other wars are available in the English Wikipedia. Also, some wars do not have separate pages, so check the wars on the Alp Arslan page. Kartal1071 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:::We can not use Wikipedia articles to reference Wikipedia, per WP:CIRC ↗. --Kansas Bear 21:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::In that case I will find the source and send it to you within 1 week at the latest. Kartal1071 (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::What is the minimum number of resources I need to find? Kartal1071 (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::At least one university published source indicating the battle, the belligerents, and the result of the battle should be fine. Also, the Battle of Nishapur (1038) ↗ references/sources have no page numbers thus fail verification ↗. --Kansas Bear 19:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::This is also a source for the Georgian campaigns. You can also look at it if you want. There is also reliable information about the biography of Sultan Alp Arslan.
:::::::https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/alparslan
:::::::https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/155457
:::::::https://avys.omu.edu.tr/storage/app/public/ibrahim.tellioglu/63827/6.pdf
:::::::https://www.academia.edu/50976707/Sel%C3%A7uklular%C4%B1n_Kafkasya_Politikas%C4%B1_ve_Kafkasyan%C4%B1n_T%C3%BCrkle%C5%9Fmesi_1016_1121 Kartal1071 (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&qsp=3&q=siege+of+ani+1064+primary+source&qst=bl#d=gs_qabs&t=1736173866316&u=%23p%3D9JHx8pEKizUJ
:https://www.jstor.org/stable/48578237 Kartal1071 (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::battle of Caesarea
::Harris Jonathan (2014) Byzantium and Crusaders
::Lock, Peter (2006). The Routledge Companion to the Crusades (İngilizce). Routledge.
::Jeffreys, Elizabeth; Haldon, John F.; Cormack, Robin, (Ed.) (2008). The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies Kartal1071 (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::One of the links is for the Battle of Manzikert and the other is for the siege of Ani. Kartal1071 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::This isn't looking good. The Battle of Caesarea ↗ doesn't appear to have any sources that actually call it a battle. I found instances of attack, pillage, or sack, but nothing calling this a battle. If this is the case the article needs to be re-written and the title changed. The Battle of Manzikert is already listed in the List of battles involving the Seljuk Empire ↗. --Kansas Bear 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Battle of Nishapur (1038) ↗ has only one source(an unspecialized source) that mentions a victory and only in passing. Giving no details to the belligerents involved. --Kansas Bear 21:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The Georgian campaign and its sudden siege? Kartal1071 (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The Byzantine forces are defeated, Kayseri is conquered and the city is looted. It is also stated in the books as such. Kartal1071 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::None of the 4 sources used in the article Battle of Caesarea ↗, state it was a battle. In a subsequent search I found zero sources calling it a battle.
:::::None idea what you're referring to when you say "Georgian campaign sudden siege".--Kansas Bear 20:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Will you add the Georgian campaign and the siege of Ani to the list? Kartal1071 (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::You are right, it should be a siege of Caesarea, not a Battle of Caesarea. However, Wikipedia says it as a war, it needs to be corrected. Kartal1071 (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
No. None of the sources call the so-called "battle of Caesarea" a siege either. We can only write what the source(s) state, not what we interpret, think or want. So far it looks like it will be renamed as a raid. --Kansas Bear 16:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:Will you add the Georgian campaign and the siege of Ani to the list? Kartal1071 (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:: I'll be checking it during lunch. --Kansas Bear 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you Kartal1071 (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Will you add the Georgian campaign to the list?
:::Source:
:::https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/550509
:::https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/alp-arslan-saljuq-sultan Kartal1071 (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Please examine these sources. There is other information besides just the information about the Georgia expedition. Especially in the 2nd source. Kartal1071 (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 225, January 2025

Project news: ''From the editors; awards and honours; contest results ↗''

Articles: ''Last month's new featured and A-class content ↗''

Book review: ''Pickersgill-Cunliffe and Nick-D look at Germans in the Flanders Campaign and 50 years of Australian military history ↗''

Op-ed: ''Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>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) 07:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
</div>

Battle of Manzikert

In the source named Norwich 1993, p. 352, it is written that Dukas betrayed and retreated with 30 thousand men, but in English Wikipedia, the number of Byzantine army is 30 thousand. There is a mistake here. The same is in the English page of Romanos Diogenes. Most of the sources say that the Seljuk army was smaller. Byzantium was superior to the Seljuks in terms of soldiers and equipment. Kartal1071 (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:please review Kartal1071 (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::The English version of Battle of Manzikert ↗ is a Good article(GA). I don't find a Norwich 1993, p. 352 in that version. --Kansas Bear 13:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::When I looked, it was in the Battle of Manzikert section of Romanos Diogenes. Kartal1071 (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Mateos of Edessa and Michael Attaleiates say that the Byzantine army numbered over 100 thousand. Moreover, Michael Attaleiates was a direct eyewitness to the battle. Kartal1071 (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:::source Attaliates
:::https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1189/battle-of-manzikert/ Kartal1071 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

"''Mateos of Edessa and Michael Attaleiates say that the Byzantine army numbered over 100 thousand.''"

::::Those are primary sources. Secondary source are preferred for articles.
::::I wouldn't use worldhistory.org as a source. If you want to change/add to numbers to the Battle of Manzikert ↗, I'd suggest posting on the article talk page and getting consensus(it's a GA level article). --Kansas Bear 19:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you Kartal1071 (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Seljuk Wars Alp Arslan ( Tokharistan ) 1043-1044

Shouldn't this war or struggle between Alp Arslan and Mawdud of Ghazni be called the Battle of Tokharistan because it was in the Tokharistan region? For example, the Battle of Manzikert took place in the Rahve Plain, but the name of the war was the Battle of Manzikert, and the Battle of Dandanakan took that name because it took place near the Dandanakan castle. The name situation of the battles of Sarakhs and Nesa is the same. Kartal1071 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:Tokharistan ↗ is an entire region, not a river, castle, or city.--Kansas Bear 23:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::But there can be no war or struggle without a name.
::If you have a better idea, please let me know. Kartal1071 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Malazgirt (Manzikert) is also a district of Türkiye. Kartal1071 (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Turkey didn't exist in 1071. So the battle would have been listed by whatever the Byzantine's called it.
::*"''In 1043-4, hearing that Chaghri Bed Da'ud had fallen ill, Maudud sent an army into Tukharistan. This attack was parried by the Seljuq amir's son Alp Arslan, who was at that time based on Balkh; in the ensuing battle, the Ghaznavid forces were defeated with considerable losses...''" -- C.E.Bosworth, ''The Later Ghaznavids'', page 26. --Kansas Bear 23:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 226, February 2025

Project news: ''From the editors; awards and honours; contest results ↗''

Articles: ''Last month's new featured and A-class content ↗''

Book review: ''Hawkeye7 looks at three aspects of World War II ↗''

Op-ed: ''Matarisvan on ways to improve A-class reviewing numbers ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>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) 12:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
</div>

''The Bugle'': Issue 227, March 2025

Project news: ''From the editors; awards and honours; contest results ↗''

Articles: ''Last month's new featured and A-class content ↗''

Book review: ''Hawkeye7 looks at works on a female astronaut and a senior US Navy officer ↗''

Op-ed: ''Adam Cuerden on his experiences with a recent featured picture ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
</div>

Ways to improve Battle of Multan

Hello, Paramandyr,

Thank you for creating Battle of Multan ↗.

I have tagged the page ↗ as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process ↗ and note that:

{{Quote|1=Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! My reading of this article is that it has a lot of WP:Original research ↗, where you are synthesizing sources yourself instead of relying on secondary ones. My biggest concern is that it doesn't seem like any of the sources you use specifically refer to this skirmish as the "Battle of Multan" - Are you able to point me to a few sources that explicitly use this title in their descriptions?}}

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with <code><nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>ThadeusOfNazereth<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>. Remember to sign your reply with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse ↗.

<small>Delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.</small> 

<span style="color:green">ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)<sup>Talk to Me!</sup></span> 23:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:You might want to look at the article history.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Multan&action=history ↗ I made a redirect(nearly 5 years ago). This was removed by User:Marshmello707, who has added the current information. Perhaps you should address your concerns on their talk page? --Kansas Bear 00:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

My infobox flags...

Hello @Paramandyr. I have only one question. There are millions of articles with flagicons, but you are removing only mine, what's wrong? Armenian from Artsakh (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Actually, nothing on Wikipedia is "'''yours'''", per WP:OWN ↗. You seem to want to make this personal. Also, is this your first account or have you edited under a different name? You seem quite familiar with Wikipedia(where to find flags, proper way to make images, et.al.).
:Maybe you should read that infoboxes shouldn't have flags also, <u>children's books from Armenia, Armenian tourist websites, and facebook are not reliable sources ↗.</u> Continued ignoring MOS:INFOBOXFLAG will result in the notification of an admin. --Kansas Bear 23:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
::At first I don't make anything personal, speak normal with me. At 2nd, it's not only me who putted flagicons. As I saw your last talk topic (Battle of Multan ↗), there are mentioned flags, too, why don't you remove it? Armenian from Artsakh (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes you did. Battle of Multan was a redirect and was deleted as far as I know. Also, '''I don't answer to you!''' I will edit '''what I want, when I want and where I want'''! You got a problem with that, notify an Admin. Also, stay off my talk page. --Kansas Bear 01:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Nowruz: Some citation errors

Hi. Citations 79 and 187 have errors. I used Citation bothttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nowruz&diff=prev&oldid=1285329888 ↗ but it did not fix them. Can you correct them? --Mann Mann (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hey Mann Mann, I can take a look. --Kansas Bear 02:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:Fixed! --Kansas Bear 02:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::Nice. Just returned editing some Eurasian topics since 7 April.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Huns&diff=prev&oldid=1284363411 ↗ I guess I cannot abandon them or they don't leave me alone. lel --Mann Mann (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Good work is never finished! --Kansas Bear 02:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks, have a good time. Cheers! --Mann Mann (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 228, April 2025

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 Borneo campaign of 1945 and warfare the South African way ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
</div>

Regarding § Disruptive editing from Hollowww ↗

I reaching you and others because you have been involved in § this dispute ↗. I sincerely apologize for the issue and starting from now on, I will rewrite all the articles from scratch (or at least try). I have priorities on rewriting some articles, such as Roman–Palmyrene War of 272–273 ↗ and Odaenathus' Sasanian Campaign ↗, while others, like Armeno-Sassanid War of 363–371 ↗, I will rewrite in User:Hollowww/Valens' Persian campaign at some point. Some other articles will be rewritten, such as the Roman–Parthian War of 194–198 ↗, while other, I think, should be deleted, like Caracalla's campaigns of 214–216 ↗ and Maximinus' campaigns of 310 ↗. If you wish to help me, I appreciate it, contact me in any way and we will see how to manage things. Thank you again for reporting this problem to me and the community, and I will now try to solve my mistakes. Hollowww (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Asking question

Hi @Kansas Bear, I hope you're doing good, Since you know a lot about the reliability of sources and other important stuff, I really want to hear out your opinion about some page that was created like approximately months ago, Which this page is called Battle of Hamek ↗, when I was checking the article I saw that it lacks of Secondary sources or Scholarly sources (Which violates WP:V ↗) and the article also contains unsourced details that may fall under original research (WP:NOR ↗) and it reflects a non-neutral point of view (WP:NPOV ↗), I would really value your opinion on whether these concerns are warrant tagging, cleaning up, or a possible deletion discussion. Best R3YBOl (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'll give you some free advice. Don't add information like this ↗ to infoboxes or articles. That just sounds like you're here to degrade a particular ethnic group ↗. Continued editing of that nature will get you block or banned. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::I didn't mean to degrade anyone but anyways thanks. I have asked you something days ago about some page but you never replied back. R3YBOl (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
::*"''I didn't mean to degrade anyone...''"
:::Right.......and adding "Persian Pride shattered" was meant to inform the reader of what exactly?<<''Rhetorical question''.
::*"''I have asked you something days ago about some page but you never replied back.''"
:::I'm not required to answer to you.
:::So far, you've canvassed ↗ two editors ↗, added inflammatory dialogue ↗, and still want to add some anachronistic nonsense to "even the score" between the Sasanians and Arabs ↗. This is enough for me to realize you are not here to build an encyclopedia ↗, but to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS ↗. As such, you can stay off my talk page.--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Eretnids

Bro I didn't see the Uyghur part in origin, I thought they were Oghuz Turks. Thank you for correcting me. Nifushi (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Yarmuk

@Kansas Bear Hey, I noticed you reverted an IP's edit on Battle of the Yarmuk ↗, as they seemingly piling in sources like Grant's "1001 battles". I undid some of what they did, as the page is becomig messy and unorganized. Similar issue to battle of Firaz with sources. Reaper1945 (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, best to revert on sight. If IPs(or even editors) want to change battle figures, they can use the article talk page. Thanks Reaper1945. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
::@Kansas Bear There appears to be almost an edit war at Battle of Firaz ↗ now. Back and forth. Reaper1945 (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Two of the editors can't even find the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
::::As you mentioned on the talk page, the sources are so contradictory regarding this battle, and the more reliable ones dispute its existence or what happened. I don't see how Takirtakoglou's views are WP:FRINGE ↗ either as one editor mentioned. Reaper1945 (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::It isn't fringe, since I have shown that Takirtakoglou's article goes into explicit detail showing which academics doubt the occurrence of this supposed battle.
:::::Both R3YBOl and Skitash are on the verge of disruptive editing ↗. I've notified EdJohnstonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&diff=prev&oldid=1289769496 ↗, again, and will wait for their input. Both R3YBOl and Skitash have chosen to ignore the article talk page and instead are tag-team edit warring against Rxsxuis. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::@Reaper1945, please feel free to give your opinion to the on-going discussion ↗ concerning the historicity of the Battle of Firaz.--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 229, May 2025

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 aspects of World War II ↗''

Review essay: ''Nick-D on Osprey Publishing ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
</div>

Nomination of :Judith of Babenberg ↗ for deletion

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Judith of Babenberg ↗, to which you have significantly contributed ↗, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or if it should be deleted ↗.

The discussion will take place at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith of Babenberg ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by ''SDZeroBot'' (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 230, June 2025

Project news: ''From the editors; awards and honours; contest results ↗''

Articles: ''Last month's new featured and A-class content ↗''

Book review: ''Hawkeye7 looks at the Antonine Plague and cryptographic security ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
</div>

Socks

Hi Kansas, hope you're doing well.

Recently you reverted some edits made by an ip user on grounds of them being a sock of a certain G M Cupertino. Today I have observed a new IP address operating in the same area (French nobility Madeleine de La Tour d'Auvergne ↗) with a similar edit style and linking to the same geneology website. I suspect that the user you identified may have migrated to a new sock.

I'd like to report this, but I could not find 'G M Cupertino''s account, which I was hoping to use to locate the sock investigation. Would yuo happen to have a link? sovietblobfish (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Sovietblobfish! I'm ok, except for the heat(93F with a heat index of 100F) here in Kansas(ugh).
:Yes, Cupertino's edits are quite easy to spot (addition of "wife" into articles, usage of genealogics.org and geneanet for sources. Just to name three.).
:Here's the link for G.-M. Cupertino's SPI ↗. Hopefully this can be addressed.
:Hope you are yours are safe and healthy. Take care! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:Also, you might happen to mention that Graham87 ↗ has reverted another IP doing the same edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hugues de Payens

I don't think he's being disruptive anymore; he seems to have accepted the changes to Hugues' article, and now on the Nocera article as well. But I've also made a long list of policies and guidelines that he's breaking, just in case! If it happens again we can easily take it to the admin noticeboard. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Karanovasa ↗

Hello @Kansas Bear. I'm bothering you about the outcome of the Battle of Karanovasa and the sources used in that article. In a comment you made on the Battle of Rovine discussion page, you cited the date of this battle and called it an Ottoman victory.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Rovine#:~:text=Ottoman%20Turk%20victory,the%20wrong%20date ↗ I replied that it was the Battle of Karanovasa, not Rovine.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Rovine#:~:text=%40Kansas%20Bear%2C%20the,3%20July%202025%20(UTC) ↗ I then looked into the article a bit. The article stated that this battle was a Wallachian victory, and I searched through some of the sources I could find, but I couldn't find anything on this subject. Furthermore, some parts of the article don't even cite any sources. Could you please help me with this? Kartal1071 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

::I'll try to take a look at it tomorrow. My internet is currently having issues. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you @Kansas Bear. I wish you a good evening. Kartal1071 (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
::::So far I've found a thesis by Vladislav Boskovic, which mentions the battle on page 1 ↗.
::::Peter Sugar:"Southeastern Europe Under Ottoman Rule, 1354–1804 ↗", pages 21-22, covers the time period in question and only mentions a battle of Arges(maybe this is Karanovasa?).
::::I found another mention under Arges(h):

Contact and Conflict in Frankish Greece and the Aegean, 1204-1453 Crusade, Religion and Trade Between Latins, Greeks and Turks ↗, Nikolaos Chrissis, page 188.

::::Should this battle be called Arges(h)? --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::Frankly, I agree with you; the name of the battle could be the Battle of Argesh. According to the source you provided, the name of the article is the Battle of Argesh. Kartal1071 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::Also @Kansas Bear, thank you again. Kartal1071 (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::Also, the dates of the battles are the same. Kartal1071 (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::'''Southeastern Europe Under Ottoman Rule, 1354–1804''' The date given in this source is consistent with the Battle of Rovine ↗. Kartal1071 (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::Battle of Argesh (1395)https://www.scribd.com/document/405722767/Halil-%C4%B0nalc%C4%B1k-Osmanl%C4%B1-%C4%B0mparatorlu%C4%9Fu-Klasik-Ca%C4%9F-1300-1600-pdf ↗ page:22 Language:Turkish Kartal1071 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::Battle of Argesh (1394) https://www.scribd.com/document/377768603/Halil-Inalcik-Devlet-i-Aliyye-1-pdf ↗ page:68 Language:Turkish Kartal1071 (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::More sources for battle of Argesh,

"''The Ottoman Empire: 1300-1600'', Halil Inalcik, page 139.

"''Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire ↗'', Selcuk Aksin Somel, page xix.

"''Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia'' [3 Volumes], Melvin E. Page, page 759.

:::::::Unfortunately, most of these sources only mention the battle, but give no explicit details. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::At that time, it seems impossible for us to make any arrangements. Kartal1071 (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@Kansas Bear
::::::::some claim an Ottoman victory, but that's insufficient in my opinion. Based on the information you've found, I'm certain the real name of the battle is the Battle of Argeş. I'll continue research. If I find a source with a detailed account, I'll let you know. Kartal1071 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Battle of Karinovası (1395) https://www.scribd.com/document/692897351/%C5%9Eerif-Ba%C5%9Ftav-Bizans-%C4%B0mparatorlu%C4%9Fu-Tarihi-Son-Devir-1261-1461-Osmanl%C4%B1-Turk-Bizans-Munasebetleri ↗ Language: Turkish Page:86
:::::::::Battle of Rovine (1394) https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/eflak#:~:text=Kosova%20Sava%C5%9F%C4%B1%E2%80%99nda%20(1389)%20S%C4%B1rplar%E2%80%99a%20asker%C3%AE%20yard%C4%B1mda%20bulundu.%20Bu%20durum%20kar%C5%9F%C4%B1s%C4%B1nda%20onu%20cezaland%C4%B1rmak%20zorunda%20kalan%20Y%C4%B1ld%C4%B1r%C4%B1m%20Bayezid%20Tuna%E2%80%99y%C4%B1%20a%C5%9F%C4%B1p%20Mircea%20%C3%BCzerine%20y%C3%BCr%C3%BCd%C3%BC.%20Rovine%E2%80%99deki%20%C3%A7etin%20sava%C5%9Fta%20(1394)%20Osmanl%C4%B1%20kuvvetleri%20%C3%BCst%C3%BCn%20gelerek%20Mircea%E2%80%99y%C4%B1%20taht%C4%B1n%C4%B1%20terketmeye%20mecbur%20b%C4%B1rakt%C4%B1lar ↗
:::::::::Battle of Karinovası (Rovine) (1395)
:::::::::https://belleten.gov.tr/tam-metin/29/tur#:~:text=1394%E2%80%99de%20Bayezid,garnizonlar%C4%B1%20taraf%C4%B1ndan%20korunuyordu ↗
:::::::::Kartal1071 (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::https://www.persee.fr/doc/valah_1584-1855_2011_num_13_2_1092#:~:text=Historiographic%20Views%20on,%5Barticle%5D ↗ page:79,80,81 Wallachian victory Kartal1071 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::@Kansas Bear, could you please review this source? I can't access the source, that's why I asked. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hch7kd#:~:text=The%20Ottoman%20Conquest%20of%20the%20Balkans%3A%20Interpretations%20and%20Research%20Debates ↗ Kartal1071 (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
I can't access that book on Jstor either. Sorry.<br>
I think you have a case for a request move for the battle of Karanovasa to "Battle of Arges(h)"(battle that occurs October 1394). I believe the second battle would indicate the "Battle of Rovine"(battle that occurs May 1395) where Constantin Dragas dies(per "Historiographic Views on the so-called Battle of “Rovine” and its Consequences of Mircea the Elder’s Rule", Radu Cârciumaru, page 79). Do I have this correct? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

:@Kansas Bear you've definitely understood correctly. Also, if you're comfortable with it, it would be better if the conclusion were controversial. Some of our sources claim a Wallachian victory, while others claim an Ottoman victory. Some parts of the article are unsourced. Do you have any ideas for correcting this? I'm asking because unsourced content can pose a potential problem for the article's credibility in the future. After all, you're an experienced and skilled Wikipedia editor, so I'm asking. Kartal1071 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
::Also @Kansas Bear, if you have the time, could you check out the pages on Alp Arslan ↗, Ahmad Sanjar ↗, Selim I ↗ and Malik-Shah I ↗? I've made some changes under the headings "Campaigns and Battles." Are there any omissions or errors? If so, I will correct them. Kartal1071 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Siege of Baghdad (1055) ↗ Kartal1071 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm not so sure about the "skilled and experienced" part. LOL. What we may have to do is remove everything we can't prove with source(s) and build from there. Once my internet is back up I will do a more thorough check of those sources and articles.--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you @Kansas Bear Kartal1071 (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
:::@Kansas Bear. If you have any trouble accessing the sources in the articles I've asked you to review, you can ask for help. I've also begun addressing the missing page numbers for the articles. Have a good day. Kartal1071 (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::On those Turkish sources, if we use the ones that give the 1394 date, is there enough information to form an article? Do any of them delve into the historiography of the battles of Argesh/Karanovasa/Rovine? We may need that if we are to connect Karanovasa to Rovine. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry @Kansas Bear, I saw your message late because I hadn't received a notification. I visited your page to ask you a question and that's how I noticed your message. Yeah, some write the battle of 1394 as Rovine. Others write it as the Battle of Rovine (Karinovası). But there's not much detailed information. Perhaps what's written here might be helpful.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kansas_Bear#:~:text=Battle%20of%20Karinovas%C4%B1%20(1395)%20%5B9%5D%20Language%3A%20Turkish%20Page%3A86 ↗ Otherwise, I'll continue checking every source I can find. Kartal1071 (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::How do I access the Wikipedia library? Kartal1071 (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::According to information in the source I sent, the Turks call Rovine Karinovası. Kartal1071 (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@Kansas Bear, what are your thoughts on this? Where can we find detailed information? Do you have any recommendations? Kartal1071 (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Page:90-91 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/8335 ↗ Language:French Kartal1071 (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Just some talk page etiquette, no need to increase indentations when you are continuing your conversation. Just indent when responding to another editor.
::::::::To log into the Wikipedia library, I believe you use your Wikipedia username and password.
::::::::So far it appears we have contradicting accounts as to battle names and dates. This may take some time to assess quotes from all the sources.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::@Kansas Bear. If I have made any mistake, whether unknowingly or knowingly, I apologize. Kartal1071 (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::It's just etiquette, not a big deal. It just makes it easier to read.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::@Kansas Bear, I have a question. Were you able to review the resources I sent you? Is there any information in these sources that would be useful to us? I apologize for keeping you busy. Thank you again for your help. Kartal1071 (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}

"''After achieving victory at the Battle of Argesh on 10 October 1394, Bayezid forced Mircea to relinquish his throne and replaced him with a more compliant vassal in the person of Vlad I....''" -- "Bayezid I's Foreign Policy Plans and Priorities: Power Relations, Statecraft, Military Conditions and Diplomatic Practice in Anatolia and the Balkans", Rhoads Murphey, ''Contact and Conflict in Frankish Greece and the Aegean, 1204-1453: Crusade, Religion and Trade Between Latins, Greeks and Turks'', ed. Nikolaos Chrissis & Mike Carr, page 188. This also mentions the battle of Rovine(page 189) as a separate battle.

"''1395: Bayezid's expedition into Hungary and Wallachia; Battle of Argesh (17 May). Wallachia becomes Ottoman vassal state.''" -- The Ottoman Empire: 1300-1600, Halil Inalcik, page 119. No mention of who wins the battle

"''1395: Bayezid's expedition into Hungary and Wallachia; Battle of Argesh (17 May). Wallachia becomes Ottoman vassal state. ''", --Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire, Selcuk Aksin Somel, page xix. Same as Inalcik source

"''May 17 Bayezid I brings Wallachia under Ottoman suzerainty as a vassal state following the Battle of Argesh''", --Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia, ed.Melvin E. Page, page 759.

"''...le versa pour la première fois après la dramatique bataille d'Argeş ou de Rovine (10 octobre 1394)..''", -- LE TRIBUT PAYÉ PAR LES PRINCIPAUTÉS ROUMAINES À LA PORTE JOSQU'AU DÉBUT DU XVIe SIÈCLE (*), Mihail P. GUBOGLU, page 79. Calls the battle as Arges '''or''' Rovine.

"''..il expose que le prince Mircea , vaincu lors de la bataille de l'Argeş, «s'est renduet a été mené à Brousse;''" --Mihail P. GUBOGLU, page 81. Mircea is captured(ie. losses the battle)

The links you provided for the sources in Turkish don't mention Argesh, but call the battle between Bayezid and Mircea(Rovine). The French source, "Historiographic Views on the so-called Battle of “Rovine” and its Consequences of Mircea the Elder’s Rule" page 80, would indicate there were 2 battles according to modern historiography. Cârciumaru, however, doesn't explicitly call the battle Arges(h), but refers to the battle's location as "''situated in the vicinity of Curtea de Argeş''"(page 79), "''somewhere on the road to the Argeş river''"(page 79), "''continuation of the Turkish advance along the Argeş river and the battle of 17th May 1395''"(page 79).

In my opinion, move the Battle of Karanovasa to Battle of Arges. In both articles we write a paragraph, supported by Cârciumaru, that the battle of Rovine has two different dates 10th October 1394 and 17th May 1395. That modern historiography(per Cârciumaru) indicates there were 2 battles. I also, didn't find any mention for the battle of Arges to be a Wallachian victory. Did I miss anything you posted? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

:@Kansas Bear.
:No, you didn't miss anything I said, but the Battle of Karanovasa ↗ page says the Wallachian victory. After moving the article to Argesh, should I delete the uncited parts or leave it untouched? Do you have any suggestions for the conclusion of the battle? Kartal1071 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry, I just noticed it while checking to see if I'd missed something. This source also says "Wallachian victory." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kansas_Bear#:~:text=%5B12%5D%20page%3A79%2C80%2C81%20Wallachian%20victory%20Kartal1071%20(talk)%2018%3A46%2C%2022%20July%202025%20(UTC) ↗ I'm so sorry, I missed it when I first checked. I'm so, so sorry.Kartal1071 (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
:::That is the French source that states a Wallachian victory at Rovine but the date is 10th October 1394. I think that would be enough for us to change the result for the "Battle of Arges" article to "disputed". The current Romanian source ↗ in the Karanovasa article also mentions two battles and Mircea winning the first one.
:::If there are no references for the information in the "Battle of Karanovasa", I'd delete the information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you @Kansas Bear I'll make the changes as soon as I can. I'll let you know when I'm finished. Kartal1071 (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::@Kansas Bear, I made the changes, can you check? Kartal1071 (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::Looks good. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you @Kansas Bear. Kartal1071 (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@Kansas Bear thank you for editing the source. Kartal1071 (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 231, July 2025

Project news: ''From the editors; awards and honours; contest results ↗''

Articles: ''Last month's new featured and A-class content ↗''

Book review: ''Hawkeye7 looks at an overview of war history and the biography of a war historian ↗''

Review essay: ''Simon Harley critiques a work from Osprey Publishing ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>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) 13:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
</div>

WikiProject Crusades

{{User:Reverosie/ProjectInvite}} <span style="border-radius:3em;padding:5px;background:#800057;">‍<b style="font-family: Georgia; color: #ff90be">🌷Reverosie🌷</b><sup><b style="font-family: Georgia;color:#ffbdd8">★talk★</b></sup></span> 21:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 232, August 2025

Project news: ''From the editors; awards and honours; contest results ↗''

Articles: ''Last month's new featured and A-class content ↗''

Book review: ''Hawkeye7 looks at four works spanning ancient to modern times ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
</div>

Ibn khalikan

Hello i wanted to talk to you about ibn khalikans ethnicity so alot of old sources say he was a kurd and i have put the sources in my explanation but you deleted it 185.56.195.171 ↗ (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

:If by "old sources" you mean primary sources, Wikipedia is written using academic secondary sources ↗. Primary sources have to be supported by secondary sources.
:Also, you removed referenced information, which included multiple quotes, from the article and replaced it with "he was of kurdish origins", with no citations ↗. You mentioned some website in your edit summary which turns out wasn't in English(FYI, this is '''ENGLISH''' Wikipedia). Clearly this was not an improvement, therefore I reverted you.
:IF you wish to add Kurdish to his "Life" section, I would strongly suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page ↗ and getting consensus ↗. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history ↗ coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here ↗. If you are interested in running, please sign up '''here ↗''' by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team ↗. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!

I want to thank you for contributing to the RfC at Battle of Kosovo ↗. Since it seems to be mostly the same participants as in the previous RfC, we especially appreciate input from outside editors, as you often bring in neutral perspectives. It seems like you also have some experience with battle-related articles. If you would like to be more involved, for example by providing a vote, it would be greatly appreciated regardless of your stance. Cheers! Azor (talk). 12:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history ↗ coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team ↗. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 233, September 2025

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 recent works ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
</div>

Y dna tablet of Gokturks and first Turkic khaganate

if you look at Göktürks and first Turkic khaganate article you can see a lot of wrong information. As you notice most of the table is about burials that were after or even before. for example TUK001 is xiongnu period, KHN001 is mongol, OLN008 is female from Uyghur period (females don't have y dna).OLN001 is male from Uyghur period. TUK001 is female, TUK002 is xiongnu and haplogroup O-F26105,UAA001 is Mönkhkhairkhan and is haplo N. Other thing is using wrong subclades for samples for example both ZAA002 and ZAA004 are C-f1756 →f3830→SK1082 2A01:5EC0:1807:145E:1:0:80B2:2FF5 ↗ (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Alp Arslan ↗

@Kansas Bear, an anonymous user made a change to the categories in Alp Arslan article. I reverted one of them because it was incorrect. But I wanted to consult you because I was in doubt about whether the other one would stay or not. Kartal1071 (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

:The <nowiki>Category:Persecution of Christians ↗</nowiki>? Does the article say anything like that?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
::@Kansas Bear, yeah.Kartal1071 (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Then you can include it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
::::@Kansas Bear, thank you. Kartal1071 (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

False accusation

Yesterday you said that I’m CeRcVa13’s sockpuppet, but I want to make it clear that I don’t even know who that is. Maybe CeRcVa13 had similar interests, but that’s not enough to prove anything. From what I’ve seen, they were making disruptive edits and using offensive language, and I have nothing to do with that. In fact, I’ve often reverted vandalism myself and have almost never received any warnings. As for the Colchis ↗ article, I added some new sources there, and I think removing them actually makes the article worse. 5.152.106.148 ↗ (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

:Under a great deal of good faith ↗ I have restored your edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 234, October 2025

Project news: ''From the editors; awards and honours; contest results ↗''

Articles: ''Last month's new featured and A-class content ↗''

Book review: ''Three Wikipedia editors review five books ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
</div>

About Armenian deitis

Hello Kansas Bear, you Added in Anahit ↗'s article sentence that "According to Matthew Canepa, Christoph Baumer, and Richard Foltz, Anahit as well as Aramazd, Vahagn, Mihr, and Tir were of Iranian origin and that Iranian religions heavily influenced major Armenian deities". But in Christoph Baumer 's reserch saied about derving for two deitis-Anahit and Aramazd, in other deitis there saied only "corresponded" or "conected". Beside this in Tir's section there saied that "K. Iskhol Kerovpian belive that Tir was a primordal Armenian", also in Vahagn's section said "corresponded to the iranian Verethragna", in Mihr section saied that "Mihr closly related to Mithra". Also Armen Petrosyan sites that Vahagn had key diferences from iranian Verethragna{{Sfn|Petrosyan|2007|p=6}}, Georges Dumézil shares this opinion{{Sfn|Dumézil|1970|p=123}}. In Tir's article beside Armen Petrosyan{{Sfn|Petrosyan|2002|pp=133-134}}, Christoph Baumer also mantions Armenian origin of god(above). About Matthew Canepa and Richard Foltz i can't say anything because i dont found them books online. Thanks in advance. 5.77.199.2 ↗ (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

"''Of the eight god names, five are of Iranian origin...''"(Baumer, page 130)

"''Anahit was derived from the ancient Iranian goddess Anahita...''"(Baumer, page 130)

"''Aramazd-Zeus was derived from the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda.''"(Baumer, page 130)

"''Vahagn-Heracles corresponded to the Iranian god Verethragna...''"(Baumer, page 131)

"''The Iranization of early Armenian culture and the pantheon took place under the influence of the first three dynasties which were probably all of Iranian origin.''"(Baumer, page 131) --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

"''Moreover Mnemon was the first Achaemenid to insert the names of Anāhitā and Mithra, after that of Ahura Mazdā, in official documents (Kent, Old Persian, p. 154). According to a passage from the Chaldaica of Berosus conserved by Clement of Alexandria (Protrepticus 5.63.5, ed. C. Mondésert and A. Plassard, Paris, 1949, p. 139), the same king caused statues of “Aphrodite Anaitis” to be erected in major cities of his empire such as Babylon, Susa, Ecbatana, Persepolis, Bactra, Damascus, and Sardis. Plutarch (Artaxerxes 27) also states that Artaxerxes Mnemon piously made his concubine Aspasia become a priestess of “Artemis whom they call Anaitis.” <u>It was probably in his reign that the Anāhitā cult began to gain ground in Asia Minor and Syria before spreading to Armenia.</u>''" --ANĀHĪD ii. The Cult and its Diffusion, Chaumont, Marie Louise.

"''The Armenians, according to Strabo (Geography 11.14.16), shared in the religion of the Persians and the Medes and particularly honored Anaïtis.''" --ANĀHĪD ii. The Cult and its Diffusion, Chaumont, Marie Louise.

"''The kings of Armenia were steadfast supporters of the cult at Eriza, which seems to have been closely associated with the national monarchy. Tiridates III, before his conversion to Christianity, prayed officially to the triad Aramazd-Anahit-Vahagn but is said to have shown a special devotion to “the great lady Anahit . . . the benefactress of the whole human race, mother of all knowledge, daughter of the great Aramazd”.''" --ANĀHĪD ii. The Cult and its Diffusion, Chaumont, Marie Louise.

"''..Armenian culture developed under the linguistic, political, and religious influence of successive Iranian empires.''" -- Zoroastrianism in Armenia, James R. Russell, page v.--Kansas Bear (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for answer 5.77.199.2 ↗ (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

November article improvement drive

Starting on 1 November, the month-long 2025 Article Improvement Drive ↗ will target a number of content improvement areas and backlogs. Participating editors will be in line for barnstars and other awards; articles from all aspects of the project will be eligible so there will be something for everybody. Interested editors are encouraged to '''sign up now! ↗''' MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Edit wars?

Kansas Bear, first you pointed out an error in my edit of the lede - the lede should not claims such as the Buyid claim to Sassanid descent, and stick to verified facts. I thanked you for that, and revised it to exclude their claim of Sassanid origin.

Then, you reverted me again, asking me to seek consensus before editing the lede.

I read through the policy and found that is not a valid reason to revert someone, so I reverted again.

You accused me of violating "BRD", but a cursory read of the BRD article shows that it is an optional process.

Is there some kind of misunderstanding? Now a warning is added to my talk page for what reason exactly? What rule did I break? How am I waging edit wars if I showed that I am engaging in good faith by revising my edit when you gave me feedback?

Idris Shirazi (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Kansas Bear. Thank you for your work on Mkhitar of Ani ↗. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Nice start!}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>Mariamnei<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. <small>(Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)</small>

Mariamnei (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 235, November 2025

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 works ↗''

Op-ed: ''Nick-D on 20 years with Wikipedia ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
</div>

Nominations are now open for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year awards for 2025!

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History ↗ newcomer of the year ↗ and military historian of the year ↗ awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here ↗ and here ↗ respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2025 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Nominations are now open for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year awards for 2025!

Correction: nominations are open until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December 2025. {{smiley|blush}} MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Voting is now open for military historian of the year and newcomer of the year awards for 2025!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History ↗ newcomer of the year ↗ and military historian of the year ↗ awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here ↗ and here ↗ respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2025. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Io, Saturnalia!

{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;"
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | 250px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, Saturnalia ↗!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
|}

:Thanks Ealdgyth! Stay safe! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello

I noticed some errors in Alparslan ↗'s article and corrected them. However, another editor was not satisfied with some of the changes and reverted them. Could you please take a look at it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kartal1071&diff=prev&oldid=1329410755

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alp_Arslan&diff=prev&oldid=1329409303 Kartal1071 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

:It's almost impossible to find an article that completely focuses on the kinship between Alparslan ↗ and Qutalmish ↗. However, their family trees on Wikipedia prove what I'm saying.
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seljuk_dynasty#:~:text=The%20comparative%20genealogy%20of%20the%20Sultanate%20of%20R%C3%BBm Kartal1071 (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
:The expression "Founding Sultans" is also incorrect because the first Sultan of the Seljuk Empire was Tughril I ↗. Chagri Bey ↗ was the Governor of Khorasan. Kartal1071 (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

::As per WP:CANVAS ↗, since you've asked me to involve myself any edit(s) to your version would be a violation of Wikipedia policy. However, I can give you my opinion as to dealing with your issue, since I notice neither you nor Sumanuil have used the article talk page.

::Per the changes made by Sumanuil. ↗
::'''First change''': From "Father of Bravery" to "Father of the Braves"
::Are there any academic translations stating "Father of Bravery"? For a translation, I'm not sure what you can do.

::'''Second change''': From "Alp Arslan was the son of Chaghri Beg ↗ and nephew of Tughril ↗, the founders of the Seljuk Empire ↗. His grandfather was Mikail ↗, who in turn was the son of Seljuk ↗." to "Alp Arslan was the son of Chaghri Beg ↗ and nephew of Tughril ↗, the founding sultans of the Seljuk Empire ↗. His grandfather was Mikail ↗, who in turn was the son of the warlord Seljuk ↗."
::"founding sultans" does work, but "founders" without the preceding "the" works as well. "the warlord" seems a bit pretentious.

::'''Third change''': From "One of Seljuk's other sons was the Turkish chieftain Arslan Isra'il ↗" to "One of Seljuk's other sons was the Turkic chieftain Arslan Isra'il ↗"
::Turkic is correct in this case, "Turkish" being someone from the Republic of Turkey which didn't exist at that time.

::'''Fourth change''': From "Alp Arslan and his relative Kutalmish ↗ both contested this succession, which was resolved at the battle of Damghan ↗ in 1063" to "Alp Arslan and his uncle Kutalmish ↗ both contested this succession, which was resolved at the battle of Damghan ↗ in 1063."
::I think the "uncle" addition would need a source. According to Ibn al-Athir(Richards transl.) page 151 calls Qutalmish "one of the Saljuq family", the Islam Ansiklopedisi ↗ calls him cousin to Tugrul and Cagril, while Peacock(The Great Seljuk Empire, page 132.) refers to Qutalmish as cousin to Alp Arslan.
::I would go with Peacock, and use "cousin" instead of uncle.

::'''Fifth change''': From, "Alp Arslan captured Georgia again in 1068." to "Alp Arslan invaded Georgia again in 1068."
::Correct English would be "invaded".

::'''Sixth change''': From, "cavalry, crossed the Euphrates ↗, and entered and captured the city." to "cavalry, crossed the Euphrates ↗, and entered and invaded the city."
::"captured" would be correct term, not "invaded".

::'''Seventh change''': From, "Suleiman ibn Qutalmish ↗ was the son of the contender for Alp Arslan's throne; he was appointed governor of the north-western provinces and assigned to complete the captured of Anatolia." to "Suleiman ibn Qutalmish ↗ was the son of the contender for Arslan's throne; he was appointed governor of the north-western provinces and assigned to complete the invasion of Anatolia."
::Would continue to use "Alp Arslan" not "Arslan". The terms "invasion" or "captured" need a source.

::I believe a talk page discussion between you and Sumanuil can sort this out. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you @Kansas Bear. I will discuss it with Sumanuil as soon as possible and make the necessary changes. Kartal1071 (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
::::You're welcome. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 236, December 2025

Project news: ''From the editors; awards and honours; contest results ↗''

Articles: ''Last month's new featured and A-class content ↗''

Book review: ''Hog Farm and Hawkeye7 review five recent releases ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
</div>

Happy New Year, Kansas Bear!

<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75); box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em light-dark(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75), rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.75));" class="plainlinks">
left|x173px ↗x173px|right ↗
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''Happy New Year ↗!'''''}}}}
'''Kansas Bear''',<br />Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year ↗, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
<br />Mann Mann (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)<br /><br />
</div>
   ''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}}

:Thanks, Mann Mann. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

TAIV

You should consider requesting temporary account IP viewer ↗. It's useful for cases like your recent RfPP, where you'd have seen both TAs are the same person. '''<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span> [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 19:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hephthalite background of Samanids and Saman Khuda

Hey! What's up? Take a look at this ↗ and this ↗. I think both diffs sound non-neutral and biased (trying to minimize Iranian origin and pushing a Hephthalite background) especially after another edit ↗ by another user. Also, pinging {{Ping|HistoryofIran}}. It might be interesting for you. The current tone of Saman Khuda ↗ does not match with Samanid Empire#Origins ↗. --Mann Mann (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

:Hi Mann Mann. As far as I am aware, the Hephthalite origin is just one of few suggestions (along with Sogdian and Bactrian I think?) by Herzig & Stewart 2012 (as well as Richard Foltz 2019, I added a small bit about it to Ismail Samani ↗ some years ago). I think it is currently given a bit too much weight, and some of it should be in a a note instead, or at least the other suggestions could get expanded upon if possible. Regardless of their origins, WP:RS ↗ considers the Samanids to have been speaking Persian and practicing its culture when they emerged. The coin image should be removed as it's apparently not a Hephthalite coin as it was previously portrayed as. I can take a look at it sometime later this month. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

::The issue is not Sogdian, Hephthalite, or XYZ backgroud. If they are reliable, they should stay there. The issue is WP:WEIGHT ↗ on the current revision of Saman Khudahttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saman_Khuda&diff=prev&oldid=1331540148 ↗. Changed the lead and origins sections, and pushed this: " '''''His origins are disputed''', with Iranian, Sogdian [2] and even Oghuz Turkish roots '''suggested'''. The Samanids themselves later claimed Saman was a 4th or 5th generation descendant of the famed Sassanian general Bahram Chobin,[3][4] of the ancient House of Mihran.[5] '''But most likely he was of a Hephthalite princely background.'''[6]''" As you see, Hephthalite theory is favored which as I said, it does not match with Samanid Empire#Origins ↗ and sounds biased, pov and non-neutral. --Mann Mann (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Yup. I've just addressed it a bit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saman_Khuda&action=history ↗. Will take a better look after my exams. Best. HistoryofIran (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
::::I believe HistoryofIran has addressed this issue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you please change the Result of Ottoman Iran war 1775-1776

How is this Persian Victory? in the end they recaptured basra by Al Muntafiq under the command of sheikh Tamir and defeated iranian troops in sanandaj and bane All the sources provided in that page mentions only siege of basra
Cevdet; a.g.e., s. 114.
(Translated to English)
"Muhammad Ali Khan, the Iranian chieftain in Basra, After properly establishing himself in Basra, he became obsessed with bringing the surrounding tribes and clans under his control, and especially invited Sheikh Tamir of the Muntafik tribe to submit and obey. When Tamir showed resistance… Muhammad Ali Khan marched against Sheikh Tamir with about twelve thousand Iranian soldiers… When Sheikh Tamir attacked with his meager forces, the Iranians were defeated and scattered, and since it was impossible to escape from the Arab cavalry, some of the Iranian soldiers were impaled on the Arabs' spears, and some were crushed under the horses' hooves… and perished. At this time, Muhammad Ali Khan and two His brother was also killed…” ~2026-48274-7 ↗ (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, how are you? You've reverted the addition I made to the language section of the Qara Qoyunlu article. I'm Wikipedia.I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't know some of the rules. Could you tell me where I'm going wrong so I don't have to repeat the same mistake next time? Aourendil1 (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

:As explained previously by HistoryofIran, here ↗ and here ↗. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::I don't know exactly what this has to do with Armenia and Azerbaijan, but I'll read about it. Aourendil1 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 237, January 2026

Project news: ''From the editors; awards and honours; contest results ↗''

Articles: ''Last month's new featured and A-class content ↗''

Book review: ''Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 review four books ↗''

Op-ed: ''Nick-D on the Stanley Military Cemetery in Hong Kong ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>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) 12:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
</div>

Question

Are planning to report BasedBossx? I do not see any self-reverts. What should do with all the pages being affected? Start to revert one by one now or after the report? Let me know. Thanks. '''<span style="background:#4682B4; border:2px solid #4682B4; color:white; padding:2px;">A.Cython</span><span style="background:white; border:2px solid #4682B4; color:#4682B4; padding:2px;">(talk)</span>''' 04:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 238, February 2026

Project news: ''From the editors; awards and honours; contest results ↗''

Articles: ''Last month's new featured and A-class content ↗''

Book review: ''Hawkeye7, Hog Farm and Nick-D review four works ↗''

Op-ed: ''GGOTCC discusses the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>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) 12:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
</div>

''The Bugle'': Issue 239, March 2026

Project news: ''From the editors; awards and honours; contest results ↗''

Articles: ''Last month's new featured and A-class content ↗''

Book review: ''Hawkeye7 looks at three recent works ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>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) 12:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
</div>

''The Bugle'': Issue 240, April 2026

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 works ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>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) 12:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
</div>

Battle of Kapetron ↗

Kansas Bear, I'd like to consult you about the Battle of Kapetron because of your knowledge of history. The sources I sent state that the battle was a Seljuk victory. Yesterday's discussion on the article page also claimed that the battle was inconclusive, based on a few primary sources and a single secondary source (Levonitos). (Beihammer states that the battle ended with a Seljuk victory).
Sources: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/32152793/Manzikert_1071-libre.pdf?1391558628=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DManzikert_1071.pdf&Expires=1777024876&Signature=CSgpEqPTztsnfROIEFYtjTN~Vg7P9dEvHgeIuUNRCkNqJLrcIqr~JfayGXLDzeLs6S-SggGm0LlzPWD81kQHnyZMnia0X52Dtm5LaJ4pFsGLaNYDgQGsL5Md29nPm5Pg-n-MB-kSKB2NUC4DEof3R43uPsBE2crxJUd5m~oXR3ftbBLUK0LZLO~h3gA4UoNpkq04HuqBXdhIFri9ebJnB7x2QFh7FtmoC7GV3UJHKwC8Qx0xlY3vIA6ASSY1dA0tk9jc9W3piYUslLoEWrqnVxtCioCyzxeaMaTHv~AhXewKzR7liXEHDuKuhozFU5eeHkfHYzdkcqQu2Or5dsPTSg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA ↗ https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Short_History_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_Ye.html?id=zsrfEAAAQBAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false ↗ https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2488100 ↗

{{sfn|Beihammer|2011|p=606-607}}<ref>{{Cite web |last=VRATIMOS |first=ANTONIOS |date=2021 |title=Toghril Beg and Alp Arslan in the Historia of Michael Attaleiates |url=https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2132784 |website=Dergi Park |page=313}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=DELUIGI |first=HUMBERTO CESAR HUGO |date=January 2015 |title=WINTER IN THE LAND OF RÛM: KOMNENIAN DEFENSES AGAINST THE TURKS IN WESTERN ANATOLIA |url=https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/36677167/Humberto_DeLuigi-Winter_in_the_Land_of_Rum-libre.pdf?1424289263=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DWinter_in_the_Land_of_Rum_Komnenian_Defe.pdf&Expires=1766962215&Signature=bNLyJfkuapmSskK9Ta4wKnxaMQY0WfQfb0~YaTnTmCtm0U7KTQQK958QQ0QBwHJdU6V2bSL1k8Kgo8rkq7GH1NOgeAPO2YAcro5ixYH26s3MOuQ8v6gH3WyMUoYWDvA95NkyBuZLJScIzdfw8WW4qRgRh7201UuYpJop-aZGn~XrbeX4QVCBaNuc-MA1JwmyneI8Ccqsmsko4NnMdrEVj58VYJBHemyApI~4yhVGc43uyUdM4rItssAZid4sV5H9XX7Ed-qVLfZEnbwIFhht5hUpzpG9GoQW-r493SqQFjdmj1wa5dXxnsfogF57drbTKO~5GLJHHFU~exzes9SFJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA|page=12}}</ref>{{sfn|Beihammer|2017|p=79}} Kartal1071 (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

:There appears to be a discussion over this issue on Talk:Battle of Kapetron ↗. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::@Kansas Bear thank you. Kartal1071 (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
::@Kansas Bear, have you done any research on this battle? I haven't found any information in the sources I've found indicating that the battle was inconclusive. In fact, some primary sources claim it was a Byzantine victory. Given the available data, wouldn't it be more appropriate to describe the outcome of the battle as contested? Kartal1071 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I've found some sources stating Byzantine victory and some stating Seljuk Turk victory. In my humble opinion, the result should be "Disputed" with a link to a paragraph in the article explaining which historians believe it was a Byzantine victory and which historians believe it was a Seljuk Turk victory. That way all the information(of what little we can find) is presented to the reader and the reader can decide(in their own mind(s)) who won the battle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
::::I agree with your point. We should add the necessary information and resources. The reader can then make their own decision based on these resources and information. Kartal1071 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
::::@Kansas Bear, if you'd like, I can send you the resources I found. Kartal1071 (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::Just post all of them on the article talk page including the page numbers. I'll try to find my way over there after I get off work. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::@Kansas Bear, I've also included the sources I could find on the Battle of Kapetron. These include 3 books (2 in Turkish, 1 in English) and 1 article (in Turkish). Kartal1071 (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::::@Kansas Bear, have you been able to do any research regarding the Battle of Kapetron? Kartal1071 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
{{od}}
Sorry I have not. Last time I read the talk page, hadn't the other editors brought sources indicating Byzantine victory? I will try to do some digging when I get home from work. I got sidetracked by other nonsense.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

:Yeah, other editors had presented sources indicating a Byzantine victory. Kartal1071 (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
::If the other editors don't want to change the result from "Inconclusive" to "Disputed", I don't know what else you can do? Might I suggest trying to improve List of wars involving the Seljuk States ↗?? Honestly the name of the article should be something like "Military campaigns of the Seljuk states", in my opinion. Also, a number of the references don't have page numbers.--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
:::In the conclusion section of the article, one of the two sources referenced regarding the inconclusive outcome of the battle states that it was a Seljuk victory. (Beihammer, Alexander D. (2011) page: 606-607). From what I understand, other editors have also made erroneous changes. Kartal1071 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
:::@Kansas Bear, when I checked the article you mentioned, I found some inaccuracies. Since I'm not familiar with some of the information in the article, I can't comment on its accuracy. However, I will contact the author of the page to report any errors I'm certain of. Kartal1071 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
{{talk ref}}

WP : NOTGENEALOGY

Hello Kansas Bear. I saw that you deleted several of my posts, and I understand why now. However, I'm not doing genealogy, I'm providing information. First of all, I'm not basing my information on nothing. It's easy to trace the lineage of these families since each of their parents has their own page. So they're interconnected and they didn't come out of nowhere. The nobility of that era operated on a lineage-based system, so I think this information is political in nature. Furthermore, this model for creating family trees isn't mine and is explained on many pages. In short, I'm not doing this for my own enjoyment, and I'm not doing genealogy (something that isn't neutral and is only for entertainment). I don't know if what I'm doing is right, and I hope it won't be seen as sabotage; that's not my intention. If you wish, I'll delete my message. I worked on it, and seeing my additions disappear like that is a bit frustrating. Have a good day. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by VFFM (talk • contribs ↗) 17:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)</small> 

:*"''It's easy to trace the lineage of these families since each of their parents has their own page.''"
:Which is a violation of WP:CIRCULAR ↗, we can not use Wikipedia articles to create information for Wikipedia articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
::What I'd like to know (and I say this without aggression) is, if it bothers you because it doesn't follow the guidelines, why remove my additions and not all the existing family trees for many noble families, simply because it doesn't comply with the guidelines? This way, it becomes the application of Wikipedia policy and not an attack on the work of someone who dedicated their day to it and wanted to do a good job.The advantage of the collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia is the ability to add things to it. Admittedly, I haven't cited any sources, but the pages are interconnected, and it's simply a matter of scrolling through them. I understand when it involves vandalism or content lacking objectivity, but that's not the case here; it's neutral. The goal is to ensure that pages are orphaned and have as few links as possible, but in this case, it doesn't allow anyone to learn new things.So ultimately, why delete the work of ONE person, which doesn't harm the quality of the page; on the contrary, it does. Admittedly, it's not the most interesting information on the page, but still. And in that case, why is it a collaborative encyclopedia if anything you add is immediately deleted? VFFM (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

:*"''What I'd like to know (and I say this without aggression) is, if it bothers you because it doesn't follow the guidelines....
::Let me get this straight. You were told why using other Wikipedia articles to make this genealogical tree violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY ↗ and WP:CIRCULAR ↗, and instead of understanding these rules you decide to make it personal(''if it bothers '''you''' because it doesn't follow the guidelines''"). Seems you're the one taking it personal.
::I see nothing in this argument to allow genealogical trees, especially when the majority of the individuals listed in the tree aren't present in the article!
:*"''And in that case, why is it a collaborative encyclopedia if anything you add is immediately deleted?''"
::Don't use Wikipedia articles to create information for other Wikipedia articles? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Hello Kansas Bear. Yes, you're right, there's no point in taking it personally. It's probably a narcissistic disorder; I should talk to my therapist about it. :)
:::More seriously. I have carefully read the rules I was violating and I think your interpretation of them is questionable.
:::"Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic."
:::That's precisely the case, and it confirms the relevance of these family trees. This isn't genealogy "for fun". If we very frequently find a family tree for this kind of personality, it is because it illustrates the dynastic logic regulating political relations in feudal Europe. For exemple for the article Julius, Duke of Bruswick-Lûneburg, The article begins by introducing the parents of the person in question, the territories over which they reign... Genealogy is therefore at the heart of this kind of page. At the end "Julius enlarged his territories with the acquisition of the eastern exclave of Calvörde in 1571 and parts of the County of Hoya in 1582. Upon the death of his Welf cousin Duke Eric II of Brunswick-Lüneburg in 1584, Julius inherited the Principality of Calenberg. He died in 1589 and was succeeded by his eldest son Henry Julius." The relevance of including a family tree is therefore evident, given that in this lineage-based society, family ties are the origin of power and legitimacy, and explain how territories circulate among members of the same family. I completely understand that turning Wikipedia into a genealogy site makes no sense. Creating a family tree for Keir Starmer or John Swinney wouldn't be useful for explaining the political workings of a 21st-century democracy. However, it's relevant for a 16th-century prince, whose power rested on dynastic ties. Furthermore, it's inconsistent that one page has a tree diagram but another doesn't. Why is it justified on one page and not on another of the same type, unless it's not certain that the tree diagram is useless and violates Wikipedia rules? Therefore, I disagree with your editing choices. And after reading Wikipedia's rules, I don't even find that adding a family tree detracts from the relevance of an article. I say this without any animosity and wish you a good day. VFFM (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 241, May 2026

Project news: ''From the editors; awards and honours; contest results ↗''

Articles: ''Last month's new featured and A-class content ↗''

Book review: ''Hawkeye7, Hog Farm and Nick-D look at four recent works ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
</div>

Countess Marie

I just wanted to nitpick on this edit summary ↗. The Capetians only came up with the Salic law when the succession crisis of 1328 hit. In his biography of Marie, Theodore Evergates writes that Henry I of Champagne was seen as a "potential successor in the event that Louis failed to produce a son" and that "Count Henry’s betrothal to Marie promised a continuation of the royal lineage through her". Of course, the monarchy at that time was still theoretically elective. One day I might expand the article about her. Surtsicna (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

:Much appreciated! Thank you for keeping me on my toes, Surtsicna! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For helping revert vandalism on Wikipedia! Kajmer05 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
|}

Thanks Kajmer05! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

''The Bugle'': Issue 242, June 2026

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 three recent works ↗''

Timeline: ''This month in military history ↗''

</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the Military history WikiProject ↗. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project ↗ or sign up here.<br/>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) 13:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
</div>

Nomination of :Georg Strack ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Georg Strack ↗ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗.

The article is being discussed at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georg Strack ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines ↗.

Users may still edit the article ↗, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.</div> Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Clarification regarding my edit

Hello,

I would like to clarify my recent edit.

While working on the article, I copied its content to my sandbox and completed all of my edits there. Once the work was finished, I replaced the existing article with the revised version instead of making many small edits one by one.

The content of the article was not substantially changed. I only removed sections that I believed were not relevant to the scope of this article while preserving the main information.

If my editing approach caused any problems, I sincerely apologize. I would be grateful if you could review my edit again. If any specific changes need to be made to meet Wikipedia's standards, I am happy to revise the article accordingly.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Vanyan Lyudmila (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

:I'm curious as to why this was brought up ''here'' rather than on your own talk page.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
:By the way: any idea why the Hive ↗ AI-generated content detector would say that message is 87.3% likely to have been AI-generated?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Since you have been reverted on Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) ↗ by Presby Libertarian, Skywatcher68, Augmented Seventh, and myself. I believe you should start a discussion on the article talk page, instead of reverting to your version. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit warning notice

{{subst:uw-3rr1}} Purple Pillow32 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:Instead of cut and pasting a warning you should learn what a Featured Article is and realize you need consensus. Also, the infobox summarizes the article and shouldn't have names, figures, or places not mentioned in the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::Do you not understand that all of my edits were cited with academic sources? Instead of checking my citations, you unprofessionally remove all of my edits without any rational reason. Purple Pillow32 (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:::Do you not understand if you're reverted, you should use the article talk page.... guess not.--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2026 (UTC)