User talk:Kansas Bear/Archive 1

Issue

 * Kansas Bear, has your issue been resolved? I was a bit confused about what the problem between you and HENRY V was. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering this individual has made these statements;

"''      As you made the elementry mistake of calling it a treaty it was in fact a congrass..."
 * Refuted by these sources...
 * Treaty of Arras,
 * Louise Creighton, A First History of France, p122.
 * Charles William Chadwick Oman, The History of England, from the Accession of Richard II to the Death of Richard III (1377-1485), p304.
 * John Foster Kirk, Charles, History of Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, p36.
 * Edward Augustus Freeman, General Sketch of European History, p232.
 * David Jayne Hill, A history of diplomacy in the international development of Europe, p85.


 * "Basicly now your unsourced statements are refuted"
 * "It shows your immiturity on this matter by msking up definitions'''"
 * I do not see any reason to continue any dialogue with this person. Any and all statements I've "made" were referenced, his ignorance of the facts is not my problem. And my "msking up definitions", let this individual go to dictionary.com, 'cause.... DAMN! His statements are fallacious and amusing and considering he needs some sort of childish ego boost, his acuity is flawed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

)

Your Edit
Why did you erase the part of the sentence which read, "prolific state builders in Eurasia"? In your edit you said you'd like a reference for the "multi-ethnic conglomeration" but you nonetheless erased another portion of the sentence which is already known beyond a reasonable doubt and referenced by way of four seperate articles on Wikipedia. Indeed the Bulgars created at least four states. As I said, there are fully referenced Wikipedia articles about these four states founded and administered by the Bulgars, which are: (1)Volga Bulgaria (3) Great Bulgaria (2) First Bulgarian Empire (4) Second Bulgarian Empire. I placed internal links to these articles as references to "prolific state builders" which were then erased. If you do not believe that the Bulgars were prolific state builders than please erase those Wikipedia articles and see for yourself how people will respond to you then. You might as well then go on to disprove all academics on this topic as well. Since you will not be doing that I suggest you read those articles in order to better educate yourself about this topic. Please do not erase such well documented realities of history. Thank you for your time...--Monshuai (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding questionable information,""multi-ethnic conglomeration", without a reliable published source WILL be removed. Your statement of "You might as well then go on to disprove all academics on this topic as well", doesn't impress me. Take your "grandstanding" elsewhere. Please don't be so egotistic as to think since you've added something that it's "such well documented realities of history". Especially when the anon IP(as you) was using websites for references!! I've yet to see any source stating "believed to be directly related to the Huns" and Grousset says nothing like that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts
My thoughts on this? If you read the hidden comments I have inserted, is your question necessary, dear Kansas Bear??? My thoughts are the same as yours. When I first read the quote you gave, I could not figure out much of anything:
 * 1) the next relative: who is she? her daughter? her granddaughter? in which case she would not be named a *relative*;
 * 2) Louise Diane (who becomes Louise in the next sentence): why mention that she was the favourite of Madame? unnecessary verbiage, and which *Madame*? because it spills over several generations & there was always one *Madame*;
 * 3) I imagine that Louise (who must be Louise Diane) must have married the Prince of Conti since she died in childbirth after having been engaged to him seven words back in previous sentence; but is it even necessary to mention the castle in which she died?
 * 4) Her only surviving child: whose only surviving child?  That of Françoise Marie or of Louise Diane?  I guess Louise Diane since the only surviving child was the last Prince of Conti, but then you have to stop & think in order to figure out the link between Maria Fortunata, Charlotte Aglaé & Françoise-Marie;

The whole thing is a terrible imbroglio of personages who do not need to be there as they are linked to their own articles. One would have to be an extremely good writer to write & make sense out of the family tree. That's why family trees are presented as such, not in writing.

What I fear is that our *Alexandre Dumas, junior* is going to give the same treatment to all related articles, i.e. the articles of these relatives, in which case he should write one cacophony article on the family tree of the Bourbon, Condé, Conti, Orléans... (have I forgotten a branch?)

I have come to the point of not wanting to change anything because it would take a whole month of rewriting - that's why I have opted for the hidden comments attitude.

I also left a comment at the beginning of the *Dowry* section (pasted below minus the pictures). Why have such a section in which only the first two sentences speak of the dowry, which should be mentioned in the marriage section: the dowry being a part of the *marriage deal*. And Saint-Simon's quote is totally out of place. It comes, as the French say, comme des cheveux sur la soupe (like hair on soup).

As for the Prince de Conti, there is a mix up between father & son, Louis François I de Bourbon, who had participated in the Seven Years War, died in 1776, hence could not have had any part in the Revolution of 1789 & Louis François II de Bourbon, who died in 1814 - but I have no idea what "great part" he played in the Revolution of 1789, except for being a suspect to the revolutionaries, arrested in 1793 & kicked out of France in 1797. Anyway, as you pointed out, the battles of Hastenbeck and Krefeld occurred more than thirty years before the Revolution of 1789, thus did not follow it.

We cannot let such inexactitudes creep in. The Françoise-Marie de Bourbon article is turning into a disaster. Those of the two Conti princes, which were not on my watchlist & I am wondering what's with them.

Please feel free to delete the *Dowry* section below as it is adding a lot to your talk page.

Cordialement, (I may not be able to reply for a couple of days.)  Frania W. (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dowry
'''From her father, Françoise-Marie received a dowry of over two million livres, twice as much as her older sister, Louise-Françoise, had earlier received on her marriage to the Duke of Bourbon. This difference led to a great deal of animosity between the sisters.'''

As her new husband was a legitimate grandson of King Louis XIII of France, Françoise-Marie assumed the rank of petite-fille de France (granddaughter of France), and was addressed by the style of Her Royal Highness. Furthermore, the newlyweds traveled and lodged wherever the king did, dined with him, and were entitled to an armchair in his presence. As the new Duchess of Chartres, Françoise-Marie was next in precedence behind only the Duchess of Burgundy, and her own mother-in-law, the Duchess of Orléans.

Out of all her siblings, Françoise-Marie made the most prestigious marriage after that of her half-brother, the Dauphin of France, who married his cousin Duchess Maria Anna of Bavaria in 1680.

Another account of the Duchess was written by her husband's friend, the Duke of Saint-Simon, around 1710:

''in every way majestic ; her complexion, her throat, her arms, were admirable; she had a tolerable mouth, with beautiful teeth, somewhat long; and cheeks too broad and too pendant, which interfered with, but did not spoil her beauty. What disfigured her the most were her eyebrows, which were, so to speak, peeled and red, with very little hair ; she had, however, fine eyelashes, with well-set, chestnut-coloured hair. Without being humpbacked or deformed, she had one side larger than the other, which caused her to walk awry; and this defect in her figure indicated another, which was more troublesome in society and which inconvenienced herself.''

Her mother-in-law wrote the following in her memoirs:

all the femmes de chambre have made her believe that she did my son honour in marrying him; and she is so vain of her own birth and that of her brothers and sisters that she will not hear a word said against them; she will not see any difference between legitimate and illegitimate children

Minor edits
Hi Kansas Bear. I hope you don't perceive this as overly nit-picky, but I notice you seem to have the "mark all edits as minor" thing toggled on. Most of your edits fall outside the "minor" category, in my opinion... Would you mind changing it, or is there a philosophy behind your choice here? I'm not trying to hassle you; just curious. Best regards, Kafka Liz (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Tell Aramgar, I said "Hi!". --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do. I'm sure he won't mind if I say back atcha on his behalf. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

About Seljuk Empire
My friend, Great Seljuk Empire was an Turkish empire. Why are you insisting that it was an Turko-Persian empire? I can show you hundreds where it is correctly stated as Turkish, of Turkic origin. Please stop referencing from Encyclopedia Iranica, which is a biased source. Yes, it is clear that to some degree the Seljuks adopted the Persian language and culture, but that doesn't make them Persian or Persianate or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkadirbeyoglu (talk • contribs) 17:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest you read ALL the references listed. Grousset, et al., all state it was Turko-Persian. Continued removals of said references will result in the notification of Admins, mein freund! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I read many sources, in Turkish, English, German... All state the the empire was Turkish, of Turkic origin. Nobody says that they did not adopt Persian language and culture but that doesn't make the empire Turco-Persian. Even your source Grousset states Turkic, what about that? I addded two anoter references, why don't you look at them? I will not stop editing the article until either we will come to a conclusion together. In additon, so-called persianization is stated later in the article, mein Freund! Bkadirbeyoglu (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I read many sources..... http://books.google.com/books?q=Seljuk+turko-persian --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Turko-Persian tradition, culture is something different than the origin. You can also type Seljuk Turkish and find out much more references. The Seljuks are referenced also as Seljuk Turks. Seljuk Empire was an Turkish empire that adopted Persian language to some degree. History Channel states the empire as Turkish. Again, I am against the first sentence that over-emphasizes the Persian role and tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkadirbeyoglu (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Trying reading....
 * here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints
 * Turcoman armies coming from the East had driven the Byzantines out of much of Asia Minor and established the Persianized sultanate of the Seljuks 
 * ''renewed the Seljuk attempt to found a great Turko-Persian empire in eastern Iran..", "It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians and who, in the manner of the great old Sassanid kings, strove to protect the Iranian populations from the plundering of Ghuzz bands and save Iranian culture from the Turkoman menace
 * FYI, "historychannel" is not a published source''. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bonne journée!
Merci for your intervention on Louis XVIII. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Kind Warning
Comments such as "I don't understand this racist delusion of yours" and "your pathetically weak nationalistic rant" violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and are unacceptable for the tone of encyclopedia. Please, try to be more polite in future discussions. This will be my last warning. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments such as show us how the dichotomy of your opinions is NOT based on anything other than Turcophobia..., have brought about such statements. So, don't play the injured party with me! IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY TONE, then I'm sure you have an Admin just "waiting in the wings". I'm sure you'll feel like you've achieved something by my removal. The dichotomy as usual rests with you. I edit articles from Scottish single malt to French royalty to Sassanid Empire, in comparison to certain editors whose sole purpose is the removal of referenced sources that their  government find unpalatable. As usual, you're quick to point out any violation, yet are oblivious to your own. So mark my words, sunshine. I WILL CONTINUE TO USE  reliable, third-party, published sources  TO BACK THE REFERENCES I WRITE. If YOU have a problem then I URGE YOU to go get your Admin to get rid of me.


 * PS. I'd really love to stay and listen to more of your threats, but I'm needed over at the Madame du Barry article, and illustrate my "Turkophobia" there! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have time... another merde
Kansas Bear: Please give me your opinion on the following:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Madame_du_Barry_editing_article_problem,

caused by edits to Madame du Barry since approx. 27 June 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madame_du_Barry&diff=298852997&oldid=298851951.

Please also check du Barry talk page last four sections:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madame_du_Barry#Treatment_of_Mme_du_Barry_in_article
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madame_du_Barry#Baptism_registration
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madame_du_Barry#Sources
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madame_du_Barry#Courtesy_on_footnotes

as I said, "if you have time..." Merci d'avance. Frania W. (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Kansas Bear: Merci d'avoir à nouveau mis votre nez dans mes affaires.  Cordialement,  Frania W. (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Connaissez-vous le café turc: http://www.illy.com/wps/wcm/connect/fr/illy/culture-du-cafe/l-espresso-et/cafe-turc/, c'est excellent, un café très très fort...  à boire par petite dose, une gorgée suffit, autrement you jump through the sky. À votre santé!  FW
 * Merci, Frania. I've not tried Turkish coffee. I'll have to see if somewhere in this wasteland serves it! Anytime you need my "interference", please let me know! Cordialement! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you dare call your State a wasteland! Some of my best friends are from there... I think!  One was an ace in WWII with great stories, one of them flying over German convoys en déroute and another dropping two bombs on the train station of the city in France where I lived...   And he loved Kansas, avec ou sans café turc, his favorite beverage being whiskey.  He unfortunately passed away. To our next interferencing,  Frania W. (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Touche', Frania! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Norashen and Surb Nshan
Hi Kansas Bear, the two churches Norashen Church, Tbilisi and Church of the Holy Cross, Tbilisi are distinct. The coordinates are in the articles for each. The latter is 0.25 miles NNW of Norashen. Serouj (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks. I was searching for references concerning Church of the Holy Cross and stumbled across Norashen Church. What is up with the citation on the Armenian wording/spelling of the Church of the Holy Cross? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question... Սուրբ Նշան (Surb Nshan) means Holy (Սուրբ) Seal (Նշան).  I had incorrectly translated to Holy Cross (that would be Սուրբ Խաչ, Surb Khach as in khachkar).  Նշան, on the other hand, can have several meanings, including sign or seal, depending on its context. Although it does also have an older usage as "Holy Cross". Serouj (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was curious why someone had placed a citation needed tag on the Armenian wording/spelling. That's all. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Vos réversions chez Philippe V d'Espagne
Ours du Kansas, vous n'aimez donc pas que l'on traite le mi-français mi-bavarois Louis XIV de la soi-disant Maison de Bourbon de *rombistious* ??? Frania W. (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you read that tripe, Frania? OMG! I nearly went cross-eyed when I read it!! :-D --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read it. That's where I got *rombistious*, on which I burst out laughing wondering what you had thought of that one!  à la prochaine!  Frania W. (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thank you sir! :-D --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Ankara
Do you mind if I revert back to my version? Although the IP is a POV pusher, he did make some useful edits in the "Forces" section of the article. When I rewrote that section, I verified the facts and figures attributed to the various sources provided. They may, of course, be outdated, but I think it's still a good jumping off point for now. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Will it include the Serbian commander's name and the number of Serbs, since both are referenced? I also did a minor re-write and added some references. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could include those and leave a ? for the rest of the figures. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Louise Adélaïde d'Orléans
Kansas Bear: I imagine that your question means you are not favorable to the sibling section. Rendez-vous à ma talk page for response. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ours du Kansas, You asked "How is it you keep finding all the interesting articles??" My answer: Just clicking away!
 * My turn to ask: How do we keep bumping into each other at all the interesting articles??  Bonne journée! Frania W. (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Tvrtko I - a Serb
Hello! Thank you for reverting vandalism here. I wouldn't suggest asking nationalistic vandals for references; they will provide references (biased ones, of course) and then you'll have to prove that those sources are not reliable, etc. I mean, even if he was a Serb/Croat, is it really notable enough to be mentioned in the lead sentence? Does the lead sentence of the article about Richard I of England say: "Richard I was a French ruler of England"? Tvrtko I was Bosnian, just like Richard I was English. Anyway, just revert it ;) Surtsicna (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Will do. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

RNB
Cher Ours du Kansas: Coming from you makes this award even more valuable. Merci. Frania W. (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Halil İnalcık
H! I see that you have re~verted my addition about his birth year and birth place in the lead. You must have known that it is a common practice to put this info right after the name of a person. Maybe you can let me know if I am wrong. CeeGee (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you not see that it conflicted with information directly mentioned in the article(which is referenced,btw)? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting(!) Please be more precise. It is not clear what might be clear to you. CeeGee (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That his place of birth was called Constantinople until the Turkish Postal Law of 1930, when the name was changed to Istanbul. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Constantinople or Istanbul. What is the difference? It is the same place. Most important is that the birthdate (or year) and place is included in the lead as a common practice. You should maybe have changed the name from Istanbul to Constantinople (which is your POV) but not remove that information.CeeGee (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the difference? Historical accuracy. To ignore the Turkish Postal Law is essentially an insult to the Turkish Republic and the reforms that Ataturk implemented. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't oppose your modification. But your comment is ridiculous.CeeGee (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, you know how I feel. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Technical question
Monsieur l'Ours du Kansas,

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Serein#Question_technique_sur_le_R.C3.A9gent

Cordialement, as always. Frania W. (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Frania thanks you very much & wants you to know that French historians & other Sorbonne professors are on vacation. This is August in France, when everyone is on vacation leave.  The rest of the year, they are on leave of absence or on... sabbatical.  Anyway, Serein will get back to me. Cordialement,  Frania W. (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * KB: Serein answered & was not much help.  Keep on searching as I am.  Cordialement,  Frania W. (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * KB: Here is what Serein wrote:  Pour le Régent, franchement tu me poses une colle, je n'en sais rien du tout... A priori je dirais qu'il était simplement appelé Le Régent, voire Régent du royaume de France, mais je ne me souviens pas avoir lu quelque part Régent de France et de Navarre. Mais je peux me tromper.


 * She simply says that she does not know. (*Poser une colle*, means to ask a question to which one cannot answer.)


 * Don't give up, if there is something to find, we'll find it!


 * Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

North of RNB
KB: Have you read the exchange above the RNB award? How do we get in such histoires merdiques??? Frania W. (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)/FW
 * Just lucky, I guess. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC needs voters
KB: Auntieruth55 (talk), the author of the article the Unification of Germany needs voters for her article. Maybe you have the time to take a look at it. It is extremely well done & interesting. Would be a change from silly warring going on in other wikistates. Aufwiedersehen. Frania W. (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Filles de France
Impressive & convincing work on Louise Élisabeth de France! Don't know if she was famous enough, but have you seen similar such sources for Princess Marie Adélaïde of France where the same issue has been raised? Lethiere (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, so far;


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=T4ADAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA510&dq=Marie+Ad%C3%A9la%C3%AFde+de+France&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=Marie%20Ad%C3%A9la%C3%AFde%20de%20France&f=false
 * This reference should take care of any further nonsense:


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=rjsWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA154&dq=Marie+Ad%C3%A9la%C3%AFde+de+France&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=Marie%20Ad%C3%A9la%C3%AFde%20de%20France&f=false
 * Here is the entire listing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Kansas Bear: Thank you for the many hours you (quietly) spent on this.  I appreciate your support.
 * Will not be fighting the windmills in Wikiland for the next few hours as I have to turn my attention to much serious conflicts in the real world. Aurevoir!  Frania W. (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a problem, Frania. I enjoy digging through books looking for information. Besides, I had to dig through the Bourbon(Gaston d'Orleans, etc, etc) genealogy 10 yrs ago, so this was simply a refresher for me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

*de* France
seems to meet standards of Bibliothèque nationale de France also.
 * http://gallica.bnf.fr/Search?q=Elisabeth+de+France&p=1&lang=en&ArianeWireRechercheHaut=palette

in box at upper right, click any first name followed by "de France".

Cordialement, comme d'habitude. Frania W. (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked for "de France" in the généalogie by Achaintre that you provided & found quite a few baptismal names followed by "de France". Also, "Élisabeth de France", L.XV's daughter, is on page 154, with all her siblings listed on pp. 153,154,155.  I corrected the text, gave Achaintre page numbers & put the names back to "de France", which I am sure will be reversed.  However, according to Wikipedia's rules & regulations", I see no reason why Achaintre should be refused as a reference.  Cordialement,  Frania W. (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you haven't read the Louise Elisabeth talk page..... :-D
 * The new Larned History for ready reference, reading and research, Volume 2, by Josephus Nelson Larned, Donald Eugene Smith, p1101, "Bourbon, House of: its origin. From King Louis IX of France, "through his last male child, Robert de France, Comte de Clermont, sprang the House of Bourbon. An ancient barony, the inheritance of Beatrix, wife of this prince, was erected into a dukedom in favour of Louis, his son, and gave to his descendants the name which they have retained(Bourbon), that of France being reserved for the Royal branch. But Henry IV's children, those of Louis XIII, and those of their successors in the throne, were surnamed "de France"..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is supported by this book, History of the Princes de Condé in the XVIth and XVIIth Centuries, by Henri d'Orléans Aumale (duc d'), p7. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Need help from an administrator
A word in a category page is misspelled, but it is not possible to move the page. The discussion page can be moved but not the page itself. I have no idea how to contact a wiki administrator to get the job done. The page in question is
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Recipients_of_the_Croix_de_Guerre_(Belguim)

where you can see the last word (Belguim) which should be (Belgium).

I noticed the problem while checking the article on Leclerc where someone tried to change the link to the Belgian Croix de Guerre & got the link to appear in red, then had to change it back to incorrect spelling in order to reach the category.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippe_Leclerc_de_Hauteclocque&diff=prev&oldid=312356863

I thought you might be able to save the Belgian Croix de Guerre... and if you do, you'll get one!

Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My request was answered quite timely and the misspelled category has been moved. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed. Merci beaucoup! Frania W. (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Turkic peoples (talk)
Hi someone deleted the section on the talk page on the Armenian Genocide. It was an IP address. Should I revert? The deleted discussion was most unhelpful and user:lardayn was, IMHO, intemperate. Are there rules/etiquette about this? Thnks

Cosnahang (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I restored what was deleted. Normally, unless it is rife with personal attacks or simple ranting, talk pages should not be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

History of Iran
That IP has violated 3RR several times over now. His edits are simply copying and pasting a large amount of material from Islam in Iran (ineptly - look at the reference numbers in the section he moved). I believe this is also in violation of GDFL. I've reported this to an admin but he's not around at the moment. --Folantin (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. Well, I'll continue to keep an eye on it then. How have you been Folantin?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, he's done it again. Judging by his talk page, he has a long history of disruptive editing. "How have you been Folantin??" Not too bad in myself, thanks. Wikipedia is just as crazy as ever though. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Constantinople
Hi Thanks for the reference, there are a few more pages i'll need this on. Cheers English Bobby (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Great Seljuq Empire
Hi, in the Great Seljuq Empire page you said "This had been addressed, again" but what you mean by that? who are you addressing this to? I'm little confused. -- Mystery.sin (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest reading:


 * M.A. Amir-Moezzi, "Shahrbanu", Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition, (LINK): "... here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints ..."
 * Josef W. Meri, "Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia", Routledge, 2005, p. 399
 * Michael Mandelbaum, "Central Asia and the World", Council on Foreign Relations (May 1994), p. 79
 * Jonathan Dewald, "Europe 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World", Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004, p. 24: "Turcoman armies coming from the East had driven the Byzantines out of much of Asia Minor and established the Persianized sultanate of the Seljuks."
 * Grousset, Rene, The Empire of the Steppes, (Rutgers University Press, 1991), 161,164; "..renewed the Seljuk attempt to found a great Turko-Persian empire in eastern Iran..", "It is to be noted that the Seljuks, those Turkomans who became sultans of Persia, did not Turkify Persia-no doubt because they did not wish to do so. On the contrary, it was they who voluntarily became Persians and who, in the manner of the great old Sassanid kings, strove to protect the Iranian populations from the plundering of Ghuzz bands and save Iranian culture from the Turkoman menace."
 * Possessors and possessed: museums, archaeology, and the visualization of history in the late Ottoman Empire; By Wendy M. K. Shaw; Published by University of California Press, 2003, ISBN 0520233352, 9780520233355; p. 5.
 * Jackson, P. (2002). Review: The History of the Seljuq Turks: The History of the Seljuq Turks.Journal of Islamic Studies 2002 13(1):75-76; doi:10.1093/jis/13.1.75.Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies.
 * Bosworth, C. E. (2001). Notes on Some Turkish Names in Abu 'l-Fadl Bayhaqi's Tarikh-i Mas'udi. Oriens, Vol. 36, 2001 (2001), pp. 299-313.
 * Dani, A. H., Masson, V. M. (Eds), Asimova, M. S. (Eds), Litvinsky, B. A. (Eds), Boaworth, C. E. (Eds). (1999). History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (Pvt. Ltd).
 * Hancock, I. (2006). ON ROMANI ORIGINS AND IDENTITY. The Romani Archives and Documentation Center. The University of Texas at Austin.
 * Asimov, M. S., Bosworth, C. E. (eds.). (1998). History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV: The Age of Achievement: AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting. Multiple History Series. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
 * Dani, A. H., Masson, V. M. (Eds), Asimova, M. S. (Eds), Litvinsky, B. A. (Eds), Boaworth, C. E. (Eds). (1999). History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (Pvt. Ltd).


 * Michael Mandelbaum, "Central Asia and the World", Council on Foreign Relations (May 1994), p. 79
 * Jonathan Dewald, "Europe 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World", Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004, p. 24: "Turcoman armies coming from the East had driven the Byzantines out of much of Asia Minor and established the Persianized sultanate of the Seljuks."
 * C.E. Bosworth, "Turkish Expansion towards the west" in UNESCO HISTORY OF HUMANITY, Volume IV, titled "From the Seventh to the Sixteenth Century", UNESCO Publishing / Routledge, p. 391: "While the Arabic language retained its primacy in such spheres as law, theology and science, the culture of the Seljuk court and secular literature within the sultanate became largely Persianized; this is seen in the early adoption of Persian epic names by the Seljuk rulers (Qubād, Kay Khusraw and so on) and in the use of Persian as a literary language (Turkish must have been essentially a vehicle for everyday speech at this time). The process of Persianization accelerated in the thirteenth century with the presence in Konya of two of the most distinguished refugees fleeing before the Mongols, Bahā' al-Dīn Walad and his son Mawlānā Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, whose Mathnawī, composed in Konya, constitutes one of the crowning glories of classical Persian literature." --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ???? I think you didnt understand the question, what im asking is why did say "This had been addressed, again". Who are you addressing too??? Mystery.sin (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a better question, why did you say this; LOL Its only one word im adding you dont need to get all excited about it and that word is true so whats the point of removing something thats obviously phucking true.. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude you should not answer a question with a question cause i dont think my question was that hard lol, it was quite straight forward. The reason why i used the word "phucking" was to express something that was obvious, its basically a way of expression it wasnt used in a context of insult. If you had an IQ higher than the room temperature you would of grasp that. PS do not be biased be neutral. Peace -- Mystery.sin (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * IF you knew ANYTHING about the "RULES" you keep preaching about, you'd know you just violated WP:NPA. But I shouldn't expect civility from someone that can't even read the references! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And as for "IQ", here is your oh-so brilliant sentence....;
 * The Great Seljuq Empire (Persian: دولت سلجوقیان) was a Persianate Turkic medieval Sunni Muslim empire, established by the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks.
 * Since in one sentence you have to re-establish the fact that Oghuz Turks are Turkic. LMAO!!! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How did I violated the rules? Is it By saying "If you had an IQ higher than the room temperature you would of grasp that." well thats not an insult thats just a fact LOL.
 * And about my sentence: "Persianate Turkic medieval Sunni Muslim empire" part of the sentence defines the empire, while "established by the Qynyq branch of Oghuz Turks." describes which branch established the empire. If you want to put full stops in between go ahead and do, its simple. Anyway lets go back to the first question :). Why did say "This had been addressed, again"??? What you mean by that what are you addressing and to whom? Just curious thats all. :) -- Mystery.sin (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already listed facts about the Great Seljuq Empire, which you ignored. Tajik also posted separate yet supporting facts that state the same thing. Your ignorance of history(just a fact, LOL), which is overwhelmingly obvious, isn't my problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check this
I don't know enough about the subject, but you might want to look at this edit on Ziya Gökalp. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I have requested semi-prtection on Ali Rıza Efendi --Alchemist Jack (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem has been resolved. At least for 48 hrs. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with including "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk: Kendine Özgü Bir Yaşam ve Kişilik, Şerafettin Turan, Bilgi Yayınevi, 2004, p.19". I don't read turkish and am never going to be able access a copy (as I imagine most readers will not), so I don't get why it should not be included. The rest of the sentence makes it clear that there is some dispute. I think that is enough without really firm evidence either way. Oh, and is there nothing else to be said about Ali Rıza Efendi?--Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No reason of removal in Armenians page vandalism
The user Rayneci is removing Armenian culture and art images from the Armenians page culture section, and I have no access to revert his vandalisms. Can you please revert his removal of our culture images of dance, carpet, folk musicians, that he purposefully is removing our images of culture and art. Please help out with this thank you. 67.150.21.1 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

About Armeno-Turkish problems Genocide
Hi dear Kansas bear. Why do you delete fact links or disinterested commenst which written by English scholars ? There were 1,500,000 Armenians how could 1,300,000 Armenians be killed by Turks ? but at least read could you please read [] ?


 * Removal of referenced information can be considered vandalism, especially concerning changes done without consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Louise Diane..
my dear Kansas Bear..in the section titled References and Notes did have a valuable reference within it..why completely remove it..?! Tbharding (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Information that is unsourced. Unless you have a reliable, third party, published source, it will be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Turks in Germany
Hi, I see you have reverted my contribution. Germany: unraveling an enigma By Greg Nees (page 155) clearly states 'Because Turks are both darker-skinned and Muslim, conservative Germans are largely against granting them citizenship.'Thetruthonly (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have put the link for you in google books as it highlights the section in yellow:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ry8v9IwFgMgC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=Because+Turks+are+both+darker-skinned+and+Muslim,+conservative+Germans+are+largely+against+granting+them+citizenship&source=bl&ots=MexaJf9lu0&sig=02a1O3mLq5oVA8OAb53-AQFOutk&hl=en&ei=LTzLSpX2HI214Qbt5LDHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=Because%20Turks%20are%20both%20darker-skinned%20and%20Muslim%2C%20conservative%20Germans%20are%20largely%20against%20granting%20them%20citizenship&f=false

Thetruthonly (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) The book does indeed say this. I'm not sure who Mr. Nees is, though, or what his credentials are (nb, I'm just saying that I don't know, not that they are good or bad). Kafka Liz (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't read down farther, since at the top of the page it talks about citizenship. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Liz!! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi back! :) No, I figured you might have missed the dark-skinned Muslim bit. It does seem a rather bald and possibly over-simplified statement, though I don't doubt there's some truth to it. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason
You see: Independent Turkic states (in black) De facto states (in blue) 1. Colors are different. 2. One is a link, one is not. If you look at it, you couldn't read it easily because of this difference, your mind is stuck onto it. I have recently written M.S. thesis and my main concern was to hold consistency throughout the thesis. This is the most important thing in academic writing. The quality of the article sucks if you do not use the same rule throughout the article ( for example if there is a link in one heading and there is not a link in second, this is the change of a rule!)Kavas (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to remove the link. This isn't an academic paper. This is an encyclopedia. Feel free to link "Independent Turkic states" so you can find harmony in this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter I, Duke of Bourbon‎
Thanks Kansas Bear, I was providing the link for the user to be able to see the actual wording etc. in the source. I'm not quite sure why I have been doing this when normally it isn't done. Your guidance and explanation will be quite useful for my future use. Thanks again. Daytrivia (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jean D'Mailly
KB: I just fell upon this article: it is a pure fake & should be deleted, don't you think? Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC) (FW)
 * I believe it was in the process of being removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a coincidence. It seems to me that the article was sending readers to other articles by clicking on blue-linked names, which leads me to believe some other "D'Mailly" individuals may have "wormed" their way into other wiki articles.  Frania W. (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, when I stumbled on to the article, it was part of a fake genealogy involving Louis XI. While checking into that, which involved having you translate a piece on Louis XI's mistresses, I realized the information was very interwoven. I believe I found something about Jean d'Mailly briefly mentioned along with Ferry d'Mailly on Leo van de Pas' genealogy site. IIRC, I had asked an Admin to delete these articles, but nothing had come of it. The User:Dragoon1988, using an ANON IP as well, had created about 3 or 4 articles to promote a false genealogy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are two more created by Dragoon1988, --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Éléonore de Roucy & Madeleine de Mailly (not Maillé) are real historical figures. Madeleine's papa was Ferry II de Mailly. Find results by asking for Mailly in Éléonore de Roye, Princesse de Condé, 1535-1564, by Jules Delaborde:


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=hHu2AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=%C3%89l%C3%A9onore)+de+Roucy+de+Roye,+princesse+de+Cond%C3%A9&source=bl&ots=SsF2p4yu01&sig=srVsUnWNE-1kE3Mw0OKkMLTuhP0&hl=en&ei=Z7vYSu2-I6Pg8AbbmdW3BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CB4Q6AEwBQ#v=snippet&q=Mailly&f=false

page 2: http://racineshistoire.free.fr/LGN/PDF/Bourbon-Conde-Conti.pdf

Bonne lecture! Frania W. (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I know. This was part of the problem that I was facing. Sifting the fake individuals from the real individuals that simply had false information written into their articles!! Which is why I was trying to keep any false genealogy from being written into the Antoine de Bourbon(Navarre) article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So all that remains is to keep vigilant for fakes planted in the biography of real individuals. Bon weekend!  Frania W. (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed major reforms to decade articles
Hi - I noticed you have contributed recently to one or more of the decade articles (1990s, 1960s etc). I am proposing some major changes to these articles, as I have outlined in Talk:1990s/Archives/2012, and I would be interested in hearing your views in the first instance. Thanks. Kransky (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice of Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 discretionary sanctions
Further to this complaint at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, please be notified of the provisions of the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 arbitration case. Note that this notice is but a neutral point of information of the provisions of the final decision, and not a caution or any type of indictment of misconduct. The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Requests for arbitration/. This notification has been logged on the final decision page. Yours, AGK 13:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering


 * 1) I was not notified of being mentioned in the incident concerning Abbatai, which I was unaware


 * 2) Apparently leaving me in the dark was a way and means of pushing through to this warning without giving me any opportunity to explain myself or my actions,


 * 3) In light of the urgency in which this was undertaken, certain individuals should have checked Abbatai's edits where they would have found his post on my talk page, accusing me of adding Anti Turkish stuffs. Which apparently doesn't violate any rules of conduct on Wikipedia.
 * Conclusion: While spouting rules and regulations of Wikipedia, it would be prudent to practice what one preaches. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? Did I miss something? Kafka Liz (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My 1 revert on this page caused such a problem that someone felt it was necessary to drag my name into an arbitration, whereby I received the above threat. This, following NO notification or chance to speak on my own behalf. Apparently I'm quite dangerous!! :-D --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, now I have a peg to hang my own inexplicable terror on. ;) I'm gonna guess he was just warning you as a means of covering all bases, but still... Kafka Liz (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This was just a run-of-the-mill, hit-and-run case of vandalism (albeit by a user who has a long history of vandalism). His edit doesn't even merit a serious discussion (just read Denial of the Armenian Genocide) and I'm finding it hard to believe that Kansas Bear's name is included on the ArbCom restrictions list. If anything, you guys should be handing him a medal or buying him a round of beer. No good deed goes unpunished :) --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sliced up Maréchal
Thank you, KB. I read about his death in a couple of French books, killed by a mob & his body thrown into the Rhône, but never saw anywhere that his body was "sliced into pieces". Merci encore. Frania W. (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome Frania. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * KB: I am putting the information you sent me on the Louis XVIII talk page
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Louis_XVIII_of_France#suggestions_for_improvement.
 * Again un grand merci. Frania W. (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bernard of Italy
Thanks KB. I just noticed that Bernard was the link with all the Royal Families of Europe and Charlemagne. I didn't take into account his father. Sorry. Blood3 18:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

=About Source and Quotation=

Source and Quotatins must NOT be in English. Türk Tarih Kurumu (Turkish Historical Society) is among most respected historical societies in the World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.13.55 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, your source is NOT a third party source, therefore it should not be used. See Reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

About "non-sense" undos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihal_Ats%C4%B1z

This article is about a person who publically confessed being a racist and struggled for "racist" movement for all his life. This guy is not really known for his philosopher skills as it's written on the article, beside i didnt see any resource proving his works including any sort of philosophy.

However, you keep on wasting quite effort to keep the translation work of mine away which was nothing but a quote and only mentioned title of the person with an exact resource.

I wonder what is the motive behind your imagination making you think that you are kind of an authority who'd make the decision of "quality" of "real quotes" in biographic artices. Because, we humans, 99.9 percent of us, would find a line valuable about a known, self-confessed and prominent racist figure if it's clearly showing and giving an idea about his personality and beliefs. Instead of the line saying his favourite grandson, as this "knowledge" is still offered in the "fixed" article.

I will once more publish it and if you undo it again i will let some others know about your gigantic imagination world.

Kind Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salihakis (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've alerted an Admin to your edits. Kind Regards. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, read this article on David Duke and learn. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note: User talk:AGK
You are mentioned User talk:AGK here. I thought you should be aware, in the interests of courtesy. (If you are going to comment, either there or on a related thread, please keep it drama-free.) Regards, AGK 10:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban
You've been banned from editing Niles and Sutherland Report. You'll probably want to say your piece here--Tznkai (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering, that this is the 3rd time,,, my name has been included in some sort of Arbitration and I've yet to even be allowed a word BEFORE the final verdict, I find that any statement by me would be moot and judged to be attitude. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not part of arbitration, but arbitration enforcement, and it is entirely possible for you to persuade me otherwise. Maybe I misread the history of Niles and Sutherland Report and it is really reasonably collegiate and productive. Either way, fairness and good sense demand you get your chance to have your say, and while its obviously preferable you have your say first, its not like topic bans are hard to undo.--Tznkai (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that I had been using the talk page.
 * "The report is significant as its findings and conclusions sharply contrast the war time anti-Turkish propaganda, and it was one of those rare occasions where an outside commission had a chance to observe facts on ground directly and listen to the local Muslim population without interference. It gives a good and rare glimpse of the physical and emotional state of the region that had just recently experienced so much cruelty and destruction.
 * Is a violation of NPOV according to this, Wikipedia:Let the reader decide and needs to be removed."
 * Murat's typical response,"...cant handle truth?--Murat"
 * The observations reported by Niles and Sutherland was in great contrast to the reports received by the American public during the War. The Armenians and the Christian missionaries in the area friendly to them had so far only detailed the sufferings of the Armenians in the region.
 * Where in the Niles Sutherland Report does it say this?
 * Also, neither reference, for those sentences, state anything of that nature. From page 190 of Ussher's book, via provided link....
 * ...by a master sculptor in glistening white marble, but at dawn in summer-time they were a velvety pale pink shading into lavender, and deepening into purple under the noonday sun.
 * Page 110 of Knapp's book mentions nothing specific of either Turks or Armenians..
 * rushed down past the camp to water the fields of the village whose ant-hill-like houses in their setting of green trees were just visible from the edge of the Knapp terrace. It was a place absolutely shut in by mountains and the world shut out --" a haunt of ancient peace." The word "home" has always brought instantly the picture of this quiet retreat before the inner eye of one, at least, whose childhood summers were spent there. But now the picture is as instantly followed by the stabbing remind that Cindian also became in 1915 the scene of hideous carnage; that those simple viallagers were then butchered; that many of the girlish playmates of long ago have as women endured torture, shame and death. The death of her husband, the massacre of 1895, the deportation of her son, events which followed each other within a year, almost crushed Mrs. Knapp's brave spirit. She returned to America in 1896. Here she found new service awaiting her, service in behalf of those she loved, and to it she gave herself unstintedly, self-sacrificingly, year after year. Always keenly interested in affairs, keeping..
 * And yet even after showing this is NOT mentioned in the report AND NOT supported by the "references" cited by Murat, he STILL keeps the same sentences, and still DOES NOT have references to support such claims!
 * So, if stating the obvious is a violation, and expecting Murat to keep his/her personal opinions out of the article is fallacious, just exactly what would you then? Allow the personal opinions of Murat to fill this article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Holiday greetings
Hope things are well with you. Best wishes, Kafka Liz (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

c→ç
How do I make those "c"'s with the danglies? My computer was "born in France" & has a French keyboard ! Frania W. (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Show off! :-p --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Those danglies are called cédilles, but I believe that I am going to adopt the word you used, it's really funny! Aurevoir, Kanças Bear.  Frania W. (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * LMAO --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, that's redneck talk, n'est-ce pas? Frania W. (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

re Shusha stamp
I know the guy you reverted is an obvious vandal, but that doesn't mean he wasn't correct. Please pay more attention to what you're reverting; the stamp is indeed a custom stamp and not a product of the US postal service. --Golbez (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Duly noted. However, I reverted his deletion of a two references, and as such further deletions should be discussed not simply implemented. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Kansas Bear. Thank you very much for your very nice comment. It is always a pleasure talking to you, especially after such a long time. How are you? I hope everything is great. Happy New Year by the the way! Take care and all my best wishes. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, Dr.K. Things are fine here, still have snow on the ground(3rd week straight) and keeping busy. All the best to you as well, sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Battles of Ramla
Hi,Kansas Bear,

I am rather confused. Is Srnec your alternative name ? Anyway, my objection has nothing to do with the articles. The articles have been posted within the new articles announcement of Project Turkey. I haven't quite understood their connection to project Turkey. That's why I tried to reach the editor. Have a good day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No. There is no connection to project Turkey, maybe except for the 3rd battle of Ramla where there was a Seljuk Turk contingent involved in the battle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Louis XIV
Bonjour Kanças Bear ! It looks as if we were checking Louis XIV at the same time: you beat me to correcting "reigns". While going thru the article, I noticed that some people are changing *s* to *z* as in *centralised* vs *centralized*. Which should it be here? There is no directive on the talk page as to which English to use. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We may have to use the talk page and find consensus(if that many people even care), then indicate on the article the use of British English. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought should be done. Would you mind putting the question at the talk page? In the meantime, which should we use... or do you care?! Merci. Frania W. (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not have a preference, Frania. Whatever you decide will be fine. I also posted the question on Louis XIV talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting the question. My English being a strange mixture of the two, I have no preference & should not be the decider. The matter must be decided by consensus.  Frania W. (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I saw that Jack1755 was back. Even though he and I have never interacted I posted a welcome back on his talk page. :-D --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jack is back! He is extremely young & serious in his work. FW
 * How young is he? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fifteen. Frania W. (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Two of my three children are older than that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a saying in French: La valeur n'attend pas le nombre des années.  I am pretty sure that your children have their own "valeur", which may be applied outside of Wikipedia.  Frania W. (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope you enjoy raising them! --Frania W. (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Every day is an adventure. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the childhood of our children is our adventure in life. It was nice chatting with you. Aurevoir ! for today. --Frania W. (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your cat's name
Kansas Bear, I must say that your cat has the most original name I have ever heard bestowed upon a pet. Did you name him Bubonic, and if so, why? BTW, thanks for your message on my talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, KB's cat is not a "pet", but a "pest" - la peste in French meaning plague, like in "bubonic plague", for instance.  No further comment...  Richard Cœur de Lion, the almost 12-year old cat of --Frania W. (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, nothing so dramatic. Thanks to my love of history I decided to name him after the Black plague, so since he was a Black cat, I named him Bubonic. Usually he is just called Boo for short. What kind of cat is Richard Coeur de Lion, Frania? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he's a fierce wager of war against birds and mice. LOL. Although I tell people my cat was named after Tony the Tiger, he was actually named after Tony Blair. Don't ask me why; it was just a whim.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So I was right. My next question was going to be:  is he black? because "bubonic plague" = "black plague" = "peste noire".  Richard Cœur de Lion is an adorable peaceful over-sized rouquin = color of a lion, who makes friend with any type of living creatures, except very young boys. --Frania W. (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Frania, Bubonic is a black cat. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tfoxworth's reincarnations
I'm posting the following plea on the talk pages of some admins & editors, so please help: Please see diff. The only fix I can see is to block (even briefly, but swiftly) IPs as soon as he begins to use them, and the only way that can happen is if admins put the articles he edits (among others, Line of succession to the Russian throne, Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia, Maximilian von Götzen-Itúrbide and Nugzar Bagration-Gruzinsky) on their watchlists. I realize this isn't how admins prefer to manage these vandals, but is there any other way? Waiting until each new act of vandalism is reported by other editors gives him what he wants: 1. evidence that he is succeeding at diverting Wiki editors from doing the productive article work they come here to do 2. time during which his vandalisms appear to the public as Wikipedia's legitimate voice 3. proof that he is sufficiently persistent to compel Wikipedia to allow his vandalism to stand, while that of others is reverted. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Philip II of Spain
Thanks for the advice. I did not revert all of his edit. I just removed the "titular King of France" part from the title of the section. The other parts of his edits may need copy-editing but I may not be the right person for that job. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. From what I can tell, it is a former blocked editor, so maybe that Anon IP will be blocked as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

First Bulgarian Empire
I have posted my version in the talk page; I was outdoors up to now. Best, --Gligan (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Balakian
Hi there, I hope you're doing well today.

You left an edit summary of "(Rv, missing parts to article, deleted with no viable explanation)" on the article Peter Balakian. If you're notice, there is an explanation for the changes to the article on the talk page. Balakian well outlines how the claims to prizes that aren't prizes aren't accurate, and mentioning his location and his children is inappropriate by, well, human dignity. I can vouch that this is Mr. Balakian making the appropriate changes, he's emailed the volunteer response team. Thanks for your time, happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. Not a problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Spanish noble
Yup. Pretty hideous. I'm not sure how much work I'm willing to put in, but it's really easy to at least make it less bad. - Jmabel | Talk 01:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh I know how you feel. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at what I've written at Talk:Íñigo López de Mendoza, 4th Duke of the Infantado and see if you think I'm on the right track? This is way outside my expertise; I'm not at all knowledgable on these middling noble families of Spain in that era. - Jmabel | Talk 02:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. Not a problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: your question on my page, it's very hard to do anything about someone whose work is obviously well-intentioned and whose edits are a mixed bag. Really all one can do is roll back the bad edits & clean up any detritus left in his wake. One of the disadvantages of how Wikipedia is set up. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've mostly sorted out the article; I have a few questions open on the talk page. I don't necessarily expect you to have anything to add on the open questions, but I think you might find some of this interesting. - Jmabel | Talk 07:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite the job you done on that article. 40+ references and innumerable edits to clean up, clarify and remove irrelevant nonsense, just to make the article legible. Any thoughts on it's creator?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said above, he seems well-intentioned. His English isn't nearly as good as he thinks it is, which, given that he's apparently an older teacher or professor, isn't likely to change. It turns out the article was mostly accurate, just terribly written. It certainly was easier to work from what he had there than it would have been (at least for me) to start from zero.


 * Personally, I wish more of the people with good knowledge and bad English would write in their native language and then collaborate with someone to translate. But en-wiki has become the "magnet". I certainly don't try writing whole articles in Spanish, and my Spanish is at roughly the level of his English. And I certainly do try to give explicit citation for what I write, given the community decision a little over three years ago that such citation should be the standard.


 * In short, based on my experience with the one article, he's probably a net positive, but it's a complicated net to work out. I'd much rather have been starting from what he presumably could have written in Spanish than what he wrote in English. The corresponding Spanish-language article is nearly useless. - Jmabel | Talk 17:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could suggest he work with someone whose knowledge of Spanish to English would benefit him and wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ces Orléans!
Bonjour Kansas Bear, please go to my talk page for answer to your comment.

What does this mean ":-O" ?

à+ --Frania W. (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Kansas Bear, please go to my talk page for an answer to/queries on your comments. Thanks. Lewvalton (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, please see my talk page for further discussion. Thanks! DNYHCA (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Donald Quataert
A tag has been placed on Donald Quataert requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Constantinople
Hi there, i see you've been tidying up DNYHCA's name changing. Good job, i've sorted out some of his edits my self and am going to keep an eye one what he does in future. Cheers.--English Bobby (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've posted my summary of the Constantinople vs Istanbul argument, await comments. DNYHCA (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's amusing. This coming from a vandal that removes references and referenced information with NO discussion what-so-ever.
 * The final and official replacement of Constantinople by Istanbul did not take place until 1930., "Istanbul and the Civilization of the Ottoman Empire", by Bernard Lewis, p. x
 * The capital of the Ottoman Empire was originally called Constantinople.....and did not officially adopt the name Istanbul until 1930, "New Encyclopedia of Islam", by Cyril Glasse, p.229
 * ...Constantinople was not officially renamed until 1930..., "Daily Life in Ancient and Modern Istanbul", by Robert Bator, p.33
 * Istanbul was only adopted as the city's official name in 1930...., "Osman's Dream", by Caroline Finkel, p. 57
 * It held the name Constantinople until 1930...., by Dr. Robert Wahl, Foundations of the Faith 101, p.116 --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Still awaiting discussion. A string of quotes doesn't constitute discussion.DNYHCA (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither does deletion of references, deletion of referenced information, or your over-inflated opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of vandalism when you have no evidence whatsoever to support this claim apart from one edit, itself the subject of hotly contested debate. I suggest you carefully read the Wiki definition of vandalism before hurling insults about.  If there is a good reason to challenge an edit, then politely invite the editor to join the debate, don't assume bad faith.  I have no desire to get into an edit war over this so if you wish to revert, be my guest, but you really do yourself no favours in your reflexive posturing. All your sources are extraneous to Turkey itself - where are you indigenous sources? 78.86.172.161 (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Mr. sockpuppet/meatpuppet, you don't like the facts, backed by a 3rd party published source, continue your "edits" and you'll be gone soon enough. FYI, changing referenced information IS vandalism. And just to educate you further, the referenced information you CHANGED is from a university(BYU) located within a country that WAS NOT at war with the Ottoman Empire, hence a 3rd party source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do calm down, you really are coming across as a little paranoid. If you read my message carefully you'd have noted I do not wish to get into an edit war so I have left your reversion.  This isn't a playground where you threaten others that they will be "gone" soon enough.  Honestly - how old are you?  And FYI, a principle of Wiki editing is to assume good faith - you haven't and neither is editing referenced information automatic vandalism if the sources are contested or questionable - this is why debates exist to iron these issues out.  As for your frankly tangential and convoluted points about a "university which is based in a country which was not at war with the Ottoman Empire and so a 3rd party source", thid is not only incoherent and muddled, it doesn't answer my original point that none of your sources come from Turkey itself.  But by all means, keep your edits in situ - I'm not as bothered about the topic as you clearly seem to be.78.86.172.161 (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. Typical sockpuppet/meatpuppet behavior, first, a condition of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, followed by questioning my age(LOL), ending with a complete ignorance of WP:RS. The condition of "incoherent and muddled" appears to be yours, when YOU are the individual changing a quote within a REFERENCE to suit YOUR own view. Vandalism, anyone?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm!
Bonjour Kansas Bear! Methinks there is something weird with this IP user 200.110.180.200's edits, but not knowing the casualties figures, I am left wondering. Last December, he changed the casualty figures for this battle. I have no idea where he got these round figures, while the French article gives quite a detailed & different number & my alarm system went crazy. He has done only eight edits since December 2009, they seem insidious to me, passing unnoticed, but not right. Would you mind checking? Also his last edit at Versailles where he added "not". Merci d'avance. --Frania W. (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, Frania. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

May be you should also contact everywhere in the world to change Istanbul's name to Constantinople, good luck with that :) People should be able to book a plane ticket to Constantinople on Expedia, Orbitz right?? Actually it might be better to let Constantinople stay in the article. It is just a wound for those who are bitter about Istanbul. One of the most beautiful cities in the world... You don't need to worry I know my history well. I am definitely not a low IQ, historically challenged, bitter redneck, I can guarantee you that much.... Having actually set foot on many of those places there. I am sure you have read a lot of books about Istanbul, many many right??? Go see them first then we will talk about learning history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.136.85 (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Go learn history, then edit. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Finkel, Caroline, Osman's Dream, (Basic Books, 2005), 57; "Istanbul was only adopted as the city's official name in 1930..".
 * http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Lausanne ;
 * ARTICLE 91
 * All grants of patents and registrations of trade-marks, as well as all registrations of transfers or assignments of patents or trade marks which have been duly made since the 30th October, 1918, by the Imperial Ottoman Government at Constantinople or elsewhere..

Ottoman coin 1730: http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/cm/s/sequin_of_mahmud_i.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.136.85 (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "It is interesting to note that during the Ottoman Empire the city continued to be called Constantinople. Its name was changed to Istanbul in 1930 under the sway of Turkish nationalism." -- Dancing fear & desire, by Stavros Stavrou Karayanni, p.207.
 * The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations: A-E, by Cathal J. Nolan, p.350.
 * The Handbook of the Middle East, by Michael Kort.
 * Colonialism, Vol.1, by Melvin Eugene Page, Penny M. Sonnenburg, p.288.
 * Nationalism and the state, by John Breuilly, p.431.
 * Ethnic conflict in world politics, by Barbara Harff, Ted Robert Gurr, p.41.
 * Placenames of the world: origins and meanings of the names, by Adrian Room, 177.
 * Just to name a few. Need more? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

All literal western sources..... So what about the coin then ??? Do you think it is not authentic? .... Secondly after Turkish independence war they even changed the alphabet completely in 1928. That does not mean squad. Is has nothing to do with the what the city was called during Ottoman Empire period. There are two main sources: The Ottoman archives, and the name folks actually living in the city has been using during all those centuries :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.136.85 (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "All literal western sources...", LMAO. When faced with facts, nothing but excuses.... If you think you've got such historical facts on your side, then take your "evidence" here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually what I said was very simple and factual. You just don't want to answer... What about the coin in british museum on which the reverse inscription translates: 'struck in Islambul 1143 [ Islamic calender]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.136.85 (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

On another subject
KB of the USA: Thank you for the link, which I did not have to use: case closed. À la prochaine fois ! --Frania W. (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)