User talk:Kansas Bear/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Twisting of facts constitues Vandalism, I am reverting back to the facts. If you have problems with that just read the guy's own page and see for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.128.150 (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:Words To Avoid[1], terrorist is a listed word. You have a problem, notify an Admin. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Using the word terrorist does not make me a vandal, as suggested by your message to me. Ah you did not call me a vandal, you said my act was vandalism, sorry, big difference. So being politically correct yourself, you erase terrorist and put back... activist. Yes it is not at all nasty. I would say it is even nice; too nice for a guy who killed two absolutely innocent people! How is that for vandalism of facts? Did it not ever occur to you that you could read the discussion page, see the rationale, and then if you don't like the wording come up with your own? Had I known I would offend you that much, I would have written murderer myself instead of terrorist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.128.150 (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you continue to have a problem understanding this issue, you should contact an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kansas! Thanks for your contributions and also for your attention to the Treaty of Kars. I've added references and took off the tag. Have you looked at it? I'd be happy to cooperate! Regards Aregakn (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may be blunt. Your entire section is borderline WP:OR, if not in-fact. My suggestion is to find sources unrelated to Soviet Union, Turkey, or Armenia, since that will establish neutrality. Next, find politologists and scholars that clearly state, "The validity of the treaty is under question". Also, you will need scholarly sources, besides the Ottoman Constitution, that state that Ataturk's government was not a political entity entitled to signing international treaties, in reference to this statement, "signing by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, as it was founded in Ankara on 23 April 1920 in the midst of the Turkish War of Independence in the efforts of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk to found a new state out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire...and, according to the Constitution of the Ottoman Empire, had no legal authority to sign international treaties". Just my opinion. Good luck with your research! --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes dear, looking for those sources is what I usually do, but those are very often difficult or impossible to find. For instance, I have a relative case now; a monument of history and culture belonging to one ethnic minority is/was being destroyed in A country. Only the institutions (be it media, official institutions or NGOs) of the country of origin are those who noticed that and started relative activities of raising the issue and condemning such actions. It is impossible to find such "neutral" sources to state that issue. So the only thing I think we can do is say, "the 'institute' A said it was happening, the institute B confirmed, the C did neither argued, nor confirmed the case and D said it didn't take place". Your opinion about this?

As for finding politologists and/or scholars I did state at least 1 (i could find on the net). And there are also links to politicians. I mean I can bring lot's of media publications and programmes where such people had talked about the issue, but those are mainly ones of the concerning sides, and it's natural, in fact.

BTW, do you think the Convention on the Law of Treaties also should've been mentioned or it'd make no difference? Regards Aregakn (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain your edit. [2] As there is a sneaky vandalism in this edit which you have reverted. --ErdoTimber (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism in question is performed revision 352582049 by 81.214.157.115. I hope this information is useful to you. You can ask me anything you like. I will be happy to help you. --ErdoTimber (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you also explain why you are deleting separation of wrongly classified section in the article Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. This is your edit which reverse the information. [[3]]. The paragraph was not related to his early life but it is related to his nationality. Also it is comman knowledge that the Ottoman Empire was a religious empire not a nationalistic empire. Is there a reason why you delete my edition regarding this information? --ErdoTimber (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The March 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) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, why did you remove the additions I have made relating the predecessor and successor of the Seljuq Empire and Sultanate of Rum on the summarized box on the right?

Can you read? -- Please do not put the flag-based succession box here: the successor states are far too numerous and none possess verifiable flags.-- Also, do you have references for these changes? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm an armenian and me and my ancestors lived in this lands for years. There is something I know, Constantinapole is called İstanbul after 1435. Armenian genocide took place in 1915. Do not revert things if you dont know something. Thank your for your interest.

I suggest you not removed references and referenced information. That is vandalism. Have a nice day. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

hello, sorry to bug you here.   But I'm a bit puzzled by what you did.   How can you say that what I put in that section is an "unwarranted claim".   I undid your revert, with a little explanation and point.   But I feel I should elaborate and prove the point here.   I wrote:   "it's NOT "unsubstantiated" as the basically same thing is said just above, in the other section.....the whole article too basically is saying this...so you did an unwarranted revert."

To prove my point, if you read RIGHT ABOVE my edit, in the adjacent section, it says this here already:   "Since 1975, a couple of dozen Turkish diplomats or members of their families had been targeted in a couple of dozens of attacks, with the outcome that the Armenian revenge, as well as the background to the Armenian struggle, have made it through the world press. These notable acts, while practically carried out by a small group, were successful in conveying the Armenian Genocide and its silence to the forefront of international awareness.[10]"

It says right above my edit already the words

"targeted attacks"

"Armenian revenge"

"conveying the Armenian Genocide"

and

"international awareness".

the very same basic stuff is said right there too !!!!   As what I myself put a just below.   So what was "unsubstantiated" exactly?

In other words, how can you say that my addition was like out of left field or "unsubstantiated" when OTHER PARTS of this very same article are saying similar or basically the same things already?   I simply re-iterated it for the next section, as an INTRO, for the "Attacks" section.   I mean, that's the whole point, isn't it?  They were "attacks" for a REASON.  And it's stated elsewhere in the very same article.   (And it HAS been "every year" about, or almost so for years.)   So I'm not sure why you reverted what I put in there, in that section.   Please explain.  thank you.  Sweetpoet (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So you're here to vent your hatred of a certain ethnic group. Ok, got it. Let's be quite clear about what you are forcing into this article.

• This Armenian secret organization has assassinated a top Turkish leader or diplomat in some country in the world, every year.
  

While you're SO busy ranting, who did the ASALA kill in 2010? 2009? 2008? 2007? 2006? 2005? 2004? It would appear your self-righteous attitude is misplaced. Just like your editing. Therefore, your POV sentence,

• 1)is incorrect, since the ASALA has been dormant/quiet since 1991(also mentioned in the article undoubtedly YOU MISSED IT)
• 2)has been written to give the appearance that the ASALA is still active and has killed a Turkish diplomat every single year(which needs a reference for proof/accuracy and is not proven in this article) --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

hello.   not sure what the rude attitude is about, as I approached you here SINCERELY, and dissing it as a "rant" is not cool or called for.   (especially when you saw that I approached you politely in my very first sentence).   Why the attitude?   I approached you sincerely, here.

and not sure where you jump to the conclusion of me having "hatred".   From what?   exactly.   I don't have hatred for either group.

Now, to your points.

I hear you when you say that it has not been literally every year, in certain years.   (I had a feeling that that was your issue with it).

That may have been a BIT of an over-statement, but the basic point is that it has been just about every year FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD.   Meaning, yes, not necessarily currently, but at one time.

so I have a question.   why not just fix that part of what I wrote, instead of just removing the whole thing?  if it was not technically every single year, then why not modify that part of it, instead of eliminating everything?

by the way, I'm curious.....do you think that I have this supposed "hatred" towards Armenians?   Or Turks?

You think that my addition was pro-Turkey or pro-Armenia?   I'm not sure how you're understanding it.

Because I really do NOT have "hatred" for either one.   For real.   (Although I personally believe that there WAS a Genocide, so I guess that would make me pro-Armenia in this situation.)   But what I put in was not POV, but simply a point of fact.   The organization at least at one time was assassinating Turkish leaders or diplomats pretty frequently, out of revenge.   Where is the POV in a factual statement, that was basically stated elsewhere in the very same article? Sweetpoet (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As for, why not just fix that part of what I wrote, instead of just removing the whole thing?. Why should I waste my time fixing your glaring mistake? While you were wasting time from 4:17 - 5:08, stating on my talk page that I had done an unwarranted revert, you should have spent that time, reading your own edit. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, bro, it was NOT a "glaring mistake" but a minor one, given that they did attack or assassinate Turkish leaders about every year at least for a TIME.   Even if it may not have been current.   That IS what went on.   And not that long ago.

Number two, it would be nice if you could lessen the hostility and rudeness.  As you seem to have hate and vitriol towards me over something so petty.   I took the time to communicate with you about the matter, and all you can do is be cold, arrogant, uncivil, and obnoxious.   and really uncool.   And I'm not really sure why and where it's coming from.   I really meant nothing bad with any of this.

Number three, my question was valid that instead of summarily removing the whole thing, Wikipedia policy and suggestion is to maybe modify something, instead of removing it.   The only thing, in what I put in, that was kind of a mistake is that it was not clear that the "every year" thing was not current.  The main point of what I put in there was that it was done out of "revenge" for what they claim was an atrocity against them.

Bottom line, Sir or Madam, is this:

only blatant vandalism and/or provably inaccurate things should be "undone" or "reverted"....not things that could go either way, and done in good faith, or that could maybe be reasonably modified....and what I put in was BASICALLY valid and true...."revenge" and "convey to the world" etc.

Also, you didn't answer my question.  Did you think that my supposed "hatred" was towards Turks? Or towards Armenians?  Just curious....cuz I wasn't sure why you said I had "hatred".   (Cuz I have no hatred for either.) Sweetpoet (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you some advice. This area you added your "each year" comment, is a mine-field of nationalism and ethnic hatred. Your inability to realize your error could land you in some hot water(ArbCom AA2), that and the phrasing of your edit led me to believe your edit was ethnically based and not due to ignorance of the ASALA. I would suggest you change your sentence before someone else decides to take issue with you. Auf Wiedersehn. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear. Before calling this as vandalism please read a few random articles on this 'encyclopedia' which was shown as the reference of the origin information of Ataturk's parents. neither his father is Albanian nor his mother is Macedonian. "The new encyclopedia of Islam" is not a reliable and dependable encyclopedia, on the contrary of the valued one named 'Islam Encyclopedia' published in Turkey. Now, you can chose a few random articles of "The new encyclopedia of Islam" on books.google and make your on decision for its reliability. Good day. --İazak (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the information has a published source, Time Magazine[4] which is NOT The New Encyclopedia of Islam. FYI, removal of references/referenced information IS vandalism. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear. It is very nice to see you, a great friend, after such a long time. Thank you very much for the support. I really appreciate it. It is nice to know persons like you are around. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The honor is mine. Dr.K. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is very kind of you but I am afraid I have to insist. The privilege of knowing you is all mine :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 08:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This may be of interest for you --> [5] --Kulumpu (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

LMAO --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

not a very qualified answer. I guess, you even don't know what the Encyclopaedia of Islam is. All of their authors speak Arabic, Persian, Ottoman Turkish. Their articles are standard in the most scholarly literature about the orient. Kustantiniyye was Istanbuls name written on coins and Firmans in Ottoman times. However, I guess you even don't know what firmans are. You can go on laughing but you may not vandalise. --Kulumpu (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, removal of referenced information(which is what you have done on numerous articles) is vandalism. You wish to add something(since the word Constantinople --this is English wikipedia mind you-- is anathema to you) use the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that you are saying now things that are not true because you are afraid to get blocked. The truth is: I did not delete any reference. You have deleted the Encyclopaedia of Islam three times --> [6], [7], [8]. You didn't even use the talk page even though you deleted the Encyclopaedia of Islam for which the most reputable scholars are writing articles. In contrast you are only writing for the wikipedia. Your opinion about the Encyclopaedia of Islam is nothing that anyone cares for. --Kulumpu (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a serious reading disorder. removal of referenced information

Also, don't make judgement calls for someone else, it just shows how scared you really are. Here[9] and here[10] and here[11], is where REFERENCED INFORMATION was removed by YOU, two of which you gave NO explanation and one where you whined, consensus. Use the original name Kustantiniyye and eliminate information for which there is no source (see Jumbo Wales), which was a blantant lie, since there is this reference,>Britannica, Istanbul:When the Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923, the capital was moved to Ankara, and Constantinople was officially renamed Istanbul in 1930. AND you have NO consensus, and then you apparently mentioned (see Jumbo Wales) as some childish form of intimidation(LOL).

It is quite clear you have a reading disorder and need help. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation: "It is quite clear you [...] need help" LOL very funny. you are deleting the best scholarly source for the orient and "substituting" it by the Britannica an encyclopaedia, that has nothing to do with the orient, and which naturally provides only mini articles. However, I did not delete the britannica information. You are deleting the Encyclopaedia of Islam this is not acceptable. See the Encyclopaedia of Islam article --> The Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI) is the standard encyclopaedia of the academic discipline of Islamic studies.

The diff links you have provided, are showing that I am adding the Encyclopaedia of Islam. However you say, in bold letters, that I am removing information. What a game is this? Do you think no administrator will check the diff links you have provided? --Kulumpu (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, notify an Admin. You are suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT . --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You know that I have notified an admin. [12]. Deleting the Encyclopaedia of Islam ([13], [14], [15]) references is clear vandalism. --Kulumpu (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, then why are you still here whining? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"whining"? I do not know the reason but you are very aggressive. I cannot believe that you feel so hurt by an information referenced in best scholarly works that clearly shows that Istanbul did not have the Christian name "Constantinople" under Ottoman rule but the Muslim "Kustantiniyye". This is logical since Istanbul / Kustantiyye was not Christian but Muslim conquered at that time. This is the reality. --Kulumpu (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"No, WP:UE is established policy, not my POV. "Kustantiniyye" is not widely used in English-language sources, and therefore should not be used in an English encyclopedia. I repeat, that is policy, not opinion. If you continue to edit-war (i.e., the content dispute mentioned by the other admins) in opposition to policy, you will face sanctions. You might not like the idea, but that is the way Wikipedia works." Parsecboy (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You just don't get it. You are now to the point of WP:Harrassment. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for undoing that Huggle double-revert by me and Tommy2010. --N419BH (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I figured it was a mix up of some sort. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtfull proposal. I implemented it post haste as it indeed makes the text more NPOV. Take care.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Aregakn (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone who apparently imagines that Von Richthofen is a figure from the SECOND world war is madly reverting over a silly idea that funeral flyovers originated from his funeral. His source indicates that it is a supposition, but he insists is "useful" and "accurate". Anyway, I would appreciate your having a look at this as we need to get a consensus.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The April 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) 19:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kansas Bear. I had a look on this matter. The content inserted by the other user seems to be properly referenced. What exactly is it that you believe would disrupt the article's NPOV? Regards, Húsönd 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. From what it appeared, it was a website involving unpublished information, based mostly on the opinion(s) of the website's creator(s). Thank you sir! --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Ours du Kansas ! Merci for reverting the love message from one of my fans (probably the same) in Canada.

--Frania W. (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Frania. I understand the challenges of having an international fan-club. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"fan club" or "enemy line"? - because, more often than not, it feels like fighting on the the Eastern Front, the Western Front, the Northern Front and the Southern Front, I am already busy enough fighting Don Quichotte's windmills [16].

Thank you for coming to my rescue [17]

¡Adios, caballero! --Frania W. (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Genocide_of_Ottoman_Turks_and_Muslims. Pcap ping 03:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to ask you to express your opinion on this issue discussed [18]. Thanks, Aregakn (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You might note that at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rumi, also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you.--Rumping (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I reverted an unexplained deletion of tags on an article, which included the deletion of that skype material. Sorry, I'll be more careful. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear. Before calling this as vandalism please read a few random articles on this 'encyclopedia' which was shown as the reference of the origin information of Ataturk's parents. neither his father is Albanian nor his mother is Macedonian. "The new encyclopedia of Islam" is not a reliable and dependable encyclopedia, on the contrary of the valued one named 'Islam Encyclopedia' published in Turkey. Now, you can chose a few random articles of "The new encyclopedia of Islam" on books.google and make your on decision for its reliability. Good day. --İazak (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

---

FYI, the information has a published source, Time Magazine[19] which is NOT The New Encyclopedia of Islam. FYI, removal of references/referenced information IS vandalism. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not track the discussion pages of others, so I could not see the answer you wrote above. Time did not do this research by itself. The New Encyclopedia of Islam was taken as reference by that Time article. In fact, there is no other reference on the world saying he is Albanian-Macedonian. I tried to explain the original reference is useless, because lots of wrong information could be found in a few minutes reading on the New Encyclopedia of Islam. The solution is simple: We need to take account of the comtemporary references and I guess you know, there is no contemporary document. So the work to do is obvious. We should remove the ethnical background part. --İazak (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There are other sources stating Ataturk's ethnic background not just Time magazine. Even Mango states, "But there is no evidence that either Ali Riza or Zubeyde was descended from such Turkish nomads. page 28; It is much more likely that Ataturk inherited his looks from his Balkan ancestors.[...] But Albanians and Slavs are likely to have figured among his ancestors..".

Sources that state Ali Riza Efendi was Albanian, therefore Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was Albanian;

• Jackh, Ernest, The Rising Crescent, (Goemaere Press, 2007), 31.
• Richmond, Yale, From Da to Yes: understanding the East Europeans, (Intercultural Press Inc., 1995), 212.
• Lou Giaffo: Albania: Eye of the Balkan Vortex

So your opinion that "In fact, there is no other reference on the world saying he is Albanian-Macedonian." is simply that, your opinion. As for the removal of the ethnic background section, it already has a biased Turkish website; http://www.gaziataturk.org/ , telling the reader what the truth really is! So as you can see the article has already devolved into nationalistic drivel slopped out to feed the masses.

Also, removal of referenced information IS vandalism. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Further proof "your opinion" is meaningless;

• Cyprus: a modern history, by William Mallinson, Bill Mallinson, page 107.
• Albania, by Marylee Knowlton, page 68.
• The new encyclopedia of Islam, by Cyril Glassé, Huston Smith, page 38.
• Great leaders, great tyrants?, by Arnold Blumberg, page 7.
• LIFE Oct 31, 1938, page 24.
• The Whispering Voices of Smyrna, by Dr. Niki Karavasilis, page 105.

All state Ataturk is Albanian or of Albanian descent. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You should not be policing your friends profiles, it demonstrates your bias and abuse of power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.106.186 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Insulting individuals such as yourself should not be allowed on wikipedia. You are unable to form your writing into constructive and concise measures and resort to childish insults. The sooner you are permanently blocked, the better. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The May 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) 21:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Donnyhoca has changed the cities (Constantinople/Istanbul) name again and removed your source. I would've put it back but i'm not to good when it comes to inserting references (i frankly don't know how). I was just wondering if you knew. Cheers.--English Bobby (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Donnyhoca believes that he has the Allah(Pbuh)/God/Buddha/(some other incarnation)-right to remove references and referenced information if he doesn't like it. He will then hide behind the "skirt" of "seeking consensus" after he has sanitized the information he finds unpalatable. Undoubtedly, he has planned this little action of his which will have included off-wiki canvassing to support his opinion. The deleted references clearly indicate that the English-speaking world called Constantinople until the Republic of Turkey quit recognizing "Constantinople" as the official name of the city when the Turkish government changed the name in 1930. However, to give recognition to the Ottoman conquest of the city, I wiki-link the city to Istanbul. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as NPOV when dealing with a single purpose nationalist. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, some Turks especially are persistent about calling it Istanbul, when discussing the city pre-1930. But even official Ottoman archives calls the city Constantinople. Nationalism is a recurring problem in wikipedia unfortunately. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 23:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the wording being "....Constantinople(Istanbul)" or even "...Constantinople(now modern Istanbul)". Unfortunately there is no middle-ground with some editors. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA)is a wellknown terrorist organisation that committed crimes against innocent people (mainly Turkish diplomats and ordinary tourists at airports). May I ask what your point is to edit this article as "militant" organisation instead of "terrorist"? The purpose of Wikipedia is to submit neutral articles and the readers that are willing to discuss Armenian-Turkish relations can go to discussion forums. So could you kindly inform me what is wrong with ASALA and terrorism?Tufankaya (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you "appear" to be new, I would suggest you read WP:Words To Avoid and check out the wording for other "militant"/"paramilitary" organizations like al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, KKK. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I read WP and you have a point. I was thought that you were not considered ASALA as a terrorist organisation by editing this introduction. Since you admit that ASALA is at the same group with A-Qaeda, etc. and to call as "militant" is only a WP policy, you are right.Tufankaya (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To prove my point, if you read RIGHT ABOVE my edit, in the adjacent section, it says this here already: "Since 1975, a couple of dozen Turkish diplomats or members of their families had been targeted in a couple of dozens of attacks, with the outcome that the Armenian revenge, as well as the background to the Armenian struggle, have made it through the world press. These notable acts, while practically carried out by a small group, were successful in conveying the Armenian Genocide and its silence to the forefront of international awareness.[10]"

It says right above my edit already the words

"targeted attacks"

"Armenian revenge"

"conveying the Armenian Genocide"

and

"international awareness".

Anyway, it's a closed matter from over 2 months ago now...but it was a loose end, because I didn't see the stuff you put on the Article talk page, until just now... (happenstance). And it's annoying that you still (days after the 26th of April, when I carefully and politely went over the points with you, etc) went on about "horrible mistake", simply because the attacks have not been current.

Conveniently forgetting that it WAS "every year" FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD. As was stated basically in the rest of the article tooo.....(sighs). Plus, what makes this even sillier, is that on a personal level, I'm actually more Pro-ARMENIAN.... duhhh....Yet because I simply stated a hard fact about "revenge" etc, you ASSumed that I was anti-Aremnia. That's hasty and sloppy, man.

And just cuz of saying "Armenian method" that has to be assumed that I meant "All Armenians", when CONTEXT OF THE ARTICLE is showing that it was only certain Armenians' goal. You (and your fellow editor agreeing with you) have massive uptightness and knee-jerkiness here. And it's NOT necessary and called for.

Armenians WERE DEFINITELY victims of Genocide way back, and this organization not that long ago DID attack Turks, and it was just about every year at a certain point in time. THAT'S ALL I WAS TRYING TO BRING OUT....and instead of being cool and calm about it, and simply modifying the addition, you had to go nuts over it, and blatantly remove all of it. And then EXAGGERATE the problems with it....ayayaya...I don't really care about this article. I'm only going over this because of the principle, that your rude obnoxious attitude with me was not really called for....anyway, the loose end is finally tied up. Peace out... Sweetpoet (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't go nuts over it and certainly did not dig up something that happened months ago. AND, as I mentioned before, others[20],[21] found your edit to be npoving, rm single-purpose propagandist claims, along with User:AGK who stated, My first instinct that it is a stupidly biased, non-NPOV statement that needs to be promptly toned down.. Exaggerating? You mean the edit warring that your stupidly biased, non-NPOV statement caused?[22],[23],[24],[25]. So if you wish to continue your nonsense do so at your own risk. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What I've noticed about you is that you keep IGNORING AND DODGING how the very issues you had against what I put in ARE ALREADY THERE IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF......the very words that you whined and griped about !!!! And it's strange that you just don't SEE that.

you never address it, I notice...but simply say "aah, it's POV, it's POV, what you wrote is POV, and horribly wrong, it's propaganda". Spare me.

You never address how even though the attacks were not current, they WERE just about "every year" at least for a certain period of time. DODGE AND EVADE THAT POINT AGAIN....

Try addressing how the article ALREADY says right above my edit already the words:

"targeted attacks"

"Armenian revenge"

"conveying the Armenian Genocide"

and

"international awareness".

these very words are THERE already...and are words that I put in, in a varying way, you complained about. Yet the very point of the article and the very words PRIOR to what I added say the SAME POINT. How don't they?

Meaning what? THAT IF WHAT I PUT WAS "POV" THEN SO ARE MANY MANY MANY OTHER PARTS OF THE ARTICLE.

So many sentences and phrases in this very same article say "revenge" and "impress on minds" and "for Armenian genocide" and "targeting certain Turks". So? That's what is confusing about your attitude. You seemed to weirdly single my edit out for accusations of "POV" (thinking wrongly that I'm against Armenians, when in reality the opposite is actually true...)

What can I expect from you in response to this? More of the same dodging to the point that so many parts of the article basically say the same thing, and more neurotic accusations of "propaganda propaganda!" arf arf....? Spare me, sir/madam, cuz as I said, if what I put was so "POV" and so "propagandist" (a serious charge), then how is the rest of the article, or at least many parts of the article (like the words just before where I attempted my edit) not "propagandist" or "POV" too? I was not being "biased" (and definitely not against Armenians, as I side more with them!!! Ironic huh, you got it all wrong.)

I meant nothing bad in what I added, and what I added FIT THE REST OF THE ARTICLE AND THE WHOLE CONTEXT. Not sure why you miss that. Also, it doesn't matter that other editors agreed with you on this. There are many people, it seems, who have gotten silly and uptight over this particular article. And also, there are people who agreed with me. SO IT'S A WASH. The point is for some reason you seemed to have reacted rudely, angrily, neurotically, and obnoxiously, for something that may have needed a little modification, but was NOT this "horribly wrong" thing or blatant "POV" or "propaganda"....or whatever else you said.

again:

"targeted attacks"

"Armenian revenge"

"conveying the Armenian Genocide"

and

"international awareness" etc etc etc......are said in the article, already, before I ever said anything. It doesn't matter anyway. Sure, carefulness is important....it just seems you over-reacted. Got rude, and uncool on me. And it was not really necessary. bye.... Sweetpoet (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you have serious problems understanding English, Wikipedia's NPOV and civility regarding user talk pages, I would suggest you take your issues up with an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no real "serious problems" understanding English (as you seem to), nor NPOV, etc.

and you lecturing me on "civility" is rich. Being that your attitude was ANYTHING BUT "civil" from the get-go, back in late April. But rather was very cold and mean-spirited, accusatory, uptight, and very demoralizing.

I was TRYING to be "civil" and polite with you from the beginning, but you yourself were MALIGNANT WITH VITRIOL AND HATE AND OBNOXIOUSNESS. So again, I say, spare me.

I'm only being straightforward like this with you NOW, cuz you obviously have serious problems yourself, and neurotic judgmental issues, and HORRENDOUS incivility, and lack of understanding yourself too. And there were some loose ends. Because I did not see the stuff you wrote on the Article talk page back in late April, until just recently.

I tried being NICE to you in the beginning (the evidence of that is there in your talk history, from late April). I was simply asking you what the issues were, and explaining how what I put in did fit the rest of the article, and context, and maybe it could use modification or fixing, rather than total removal.

But you were very rude, accusatory, and abrasive. FROM BEGINNING TO END. No matter how amiable or polite I was trying to be with you. You were obnoxious and cold. Beyond blunt. So in other words, you can dish that out but can't take it. Gotcha...

You see problems in others, that you don't see in yourself. You're amazing. (and NOT in a good way.)

Also, as I said, NICE DODGE again to the actual specific points I brought out, about how the article itself already states "revenge" and "Armenian method" and "international awareness" etc etc. I expected no better of course, seeing your M.O. already, at least on this with me. Whatever. bye.

PS...no one's perfect every second, I know I'm not....but if you think you've been "civil" or reasonable, with congeniality and etiquette, in ANY of this with me, then you really need to seriously and honestly check your own self, and re-assess big time. Cuz nothing could be further from the truth. My own intentions were good, and sincere, and good-faith. And NOT that terrible. Yet you totally went out of your way to trash it, and trash ME personally too.

Though I tried talking things out, and telling you that there was a misunderstanding, that I was NOT "venting hatred" toward any group, like you said. Yet you continued to malign my edit and malign me personally all the way, viciously and rudely. And you call that "civil". Uhhh, ok...whatever. I'm done. Bye..Sweetpoet (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well apparently you seem not to be getting "it".

You posted your "information"(which 2 months ago ended up being tagged, not removed), later it was removed by TWO other editors and labeled by another as, ".... stupidly biased, non-NPOV statement that needs to be promptly toned down.".

Therefore, since you seem to have issues outside the blantantly clear fact that OTHER editors did NOT agree with your "information", any further posting on my talk page will result in an Admin being notified to handle your issues. Auf Wiedersehn --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

[ Nice discussion one line above :). ]

Kansas, I saw you participated in discussions on the talk of this article and that's why I'm writing. Maybe I am being a little dense and you can spread some light on the talk I started. It's the discussion titled "The Turkic ethnicities, Turkic languages and the population data in the article". Thanks for the contributions Aregakn (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Selam Kansas Ayısı :) Talk:Republic of Gumuljina#Republic of Gumuljina ??? sayfasına göz atar mısınız ? İyi çalışmalar. Takabeg (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I provided some citations for the Erzurum article. You can find them in the discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erzurum#Muslim_massacres

I do not want to add them myself because I am afraid I may get into another edit war with someone. Can you please have a look at that? Thanks...

68.48.22.83 (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I never filed a CU, can you request one with Darklordofseth and 68.48.22.83? This user regardless of his claim, I doubt is a newbie. That he does not register suggest he's trying to escape the useragent. Ionidasz (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI guys, [26].--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the user from that IP address. I got a username. After my initial newbie edits, I am trying

to find a consensus before adding new ones. You can check the discussion section of "Erzurum" or "Turkish Genocide" for example. I am not sockpuppeting. I am open to new suggestions and corrections in my edits. You can contact me from my talk page now. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Willie (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

--Frania W. (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear,

You have changed the name İstanbul to Constantinople in the article Koca Ragıp Pasha, citing the later is the accurate name. Well here is the on line-article about the coinage of Mustafa III reign (1757-1774) .^[1] The page says that the location of minting has been given as İslambol, a corrupted form of İstanbul (also means many Islams). (I don't know Arabic alphabet; but if you are familiar with Arabic alphabet you can click on the little camera.) So the birth and death places of Koca Ragıp Pasha (who was Mustafa’s grand vizier) can be given as İstanbul (or Istanbul if dotted İ is not permissible). That's why I insist on using the name İstanbul. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The "change" that you are so concerned about(seeing how it still links to Istanbul), is the indication that the English speaking world called the city Constantinople until the Republic of Turkey passed a law in 1930 changing their own(postal) recognition of the city from "Constantinople" to "Istanbul" for the city. Since this is an encyclopedia, should it not represents factual information? And since Encyclopedia Britannica indicates how the English speaking world viewed and called that city, the facts for English wikipedia are quite clear. I do not, however, have a problem with linking the city to the Istanbul article or having "(modern day Istanbul)" after Constantinople. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already heard this change in 1930 -theory from another user. I guess there is a misunderstanding. Up to 1930s, Turkey used Arabic alphabet. Foreign letters addressed to Istanbul had been written in Latin alphabet and a number of different names of Istanbul had been used on the envelopes. Nobody tried to standardize the names written in a foreign alphabet. But on Nov 1, 1928 Turkey switched to Latin alphabet and all institutions were required to make the necessary adoptations for the new alphabet. Turkish PTT then standardized the use of place names on the envelopes. You see, the name of the city was not changed, only the name was standardized within the rules of the new alpahabet. As for Istanbul (or İstanbul according to the rules of Turkish alphabet), it was the popular name of the city since 15th century. On official matters during Ottoman era, it was used along with Kostantaniyye, Derssaadet and Asitane. Kostantaniyye was the corrupted form of Constantinople. (But the name Constantinople had never been used after 15th century.) Have a nice day Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your reply does not address what the English speaking world called the city nor the fact that due to the change in recognition(by the Turkish government) of the name Constantinople did the English speaking world change. This is backed up by facts.

... it was used along with Kostantaniyye..., odd, which translated is what in English? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Kanças Bear:

Please go there[28] and there[29] and have a good laugh!

Frania the "V..."--Frania W. (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL...........wow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Kanças!

It got fixed.

Now, talking about archiving, how do I archive my own talk page... or should I wait for my computer to crash again & do the job?

Merci d'avance,--Frania W. (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you like me to try and set up an Archive bot on your talk page? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oui, avec plaisir. --Frania W. (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'll keep an eye on it. Hopefully it will work. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Merci!, Now, how do I put stuff in it??? --Frania W. (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it should be automatic. So we will be keeping an eye on it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK then. Mille fois merci! --Frania W. (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It worked!! I dated the first archive and changed future archiving to "Archive 2". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I don't recognise my page: it's like getting a hair cut! I feel lighter...

Merci beaucoup! --Frania W. (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear. What do you think about these behaviors ? He/She wrote an excuse but sources are not only related with personal view of Rouran khan. Nobody can remove imformation with Identifying reliable sources. I'm glad you're interested in this issue. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your query, I don't count "edits" and wouldn't know whether 1500 is many or few. But my edits are, alas, notoriously, laboriously lengthy compared to most Wikipedians -- essays where others dash off phrases. While I'd like to believe the gravitas of my content compensates for the paucity of my output, the truth is simply that I don't edit daily, and one edit often takes all I've got for days. I'm the proverbial tortoise in a race with hares. FactStraight (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Well, considering the regularity in which I see your name appear, I just assumed that your edit count would be considerably higher. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To Royalist Redneck [30] from Kir Royal [31]

À votre santé et bon weekend!

--Frania W. (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope we have a misunderstanding, as [edit] is a little troublesome. You have DELETED my quotation saying the following- Quote on page 238 "Turks who were unable to escape the oncoming army were subject to similar Bulgarian retribution. Mosques, razed to the ground by dynamite or fire, became a familiar sight in the wake of the Bulgarian advance." in Glenny's book, and replaced it with a quotation needed again. I will assume that this is an accident, because I have no other way to explain it except bad faith otherwise. Why did you delete the quote? --Yalens (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ALSO: Stop requesting quotation for the Trotsky. It is quoted in Glenny on page 234, and that exact quote is right there on the page ("the horrors..... killed in battle") in a text block. It is very difficult for me to imagine that you cannot see that. I do hope you just reverted and didn't realizing you were reverting that as well. --Yalens (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Any requests for quotes should be placed on the talk page and discussed.

Here are the sentences that are in question:

• contributing vastly to the 1 million killed from 1912-1918 <refGlenny, Misha. The Balkans. Page 238-9ref>^{[need quotation to verify]}
• Turks claim that since no country recognizes this behavior as genocide (well over 1 million Turks were killed during the Balkan Wars and World War I <refKing, Charles. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Page 158ref>^{[need quotation to verify]})
• It is notable that not only Turks but also Kurds (as well as, in cases, Circassians) were murdered and expelled in sensitive regions in the Northern Middle East and the Balkans, on the grounds of their Islam and relative loyalty to the Porte (though in the case of the Kurds, this loyalty was entering its last years as it dissipated when Kurds realized their lack of rights in an explicitly Turkish state). <refKing, Charles. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Page 158-9ref>^{[need quotation to verify]}
• Albanians, too, who were not universally Muslim, nor were they loyal to the Empire, were subjected to a number of organized cleansing operations in the form of massacres at the hands of the Balkan pact members, especially the Serbs <refGlenny, Misha. The Balkans. Pages 233 and 234ref>^{[need quotation to verify]}

Also, this sentence, "...it is absurd to call what happened to the Armenians in Anatolia (with similar proportions) genocide, and that the genocide claim is just being used against the losing side in the First World War.", is also contentious, unsubstantiated and needs a reference.

Since, none of your quotes support anything they are referencing, I will be placing a Wikipedia:Original Research tag on that section. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know this. You are sidestepping the topic at hand. I am interested in knowing why you deleted the quote that I already gave at your request.

But since you also want to discuss this, we shall. (however, I am still very perturbed at why you DELETED my QUOTE; I do sincerely hope it was a mistake).

And in the case of the contributing vastly, that was incorrect synthesis actually. I thought it meant Balkan Wars and World War I, but it only meant World War I, so I have now changed it.

I have given the quote for 1 million already on the page, and I have now bolded it since you seem to miss it.--Yalens (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you have problems understanding English, I will walk you through this.

1. "Turks claim that since no country recognizes this behavior as genocide (well over 1 million Turks were killed during the Balkan Wars and World War I." Which you have provided this source...Throughout the empire and its borderlands Muslims, too, suffered at the hands of both the Ottomon State and its wartime enemies. Kurds, formerly employed by the Ottomon authorities as irregular troops, were also deported from sensitive borderlands or simply slaugthered. Muslims were attacked, killed, moved about, and killed by Christian states in both the Balkans and in the north and south Caucasus. In round figures, the regions were emptied of more than a million Muslims during the First World War alone, not to mention the previous century of removals and atrocities by the Balkan states and the Russian empire."

Nowhere within your "source" does it say "Turks claim.....", "genocide", or "well over 1 million Turks were killed". Therefore, this is original research. "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."[32]

2."It is notable that not only Turks but also Kurds (as well as, in cases, Circassians) were murdered and expelled in sensitive regions in the Northern Middle East and the Balkans, on the grounds of their Islam and relative loyalty to the Porte (though in the case of the Kurds, this loyalty was entering its last years as it dissipated when Kurds realized their lack of rights in an explicitly Turkish state)", has nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide, undoubtedly more rationalization.

3."Albanians, too, who were not universally Muslim, nor were they loyal to the Empire, were subjected to a number of organized cleansing operations in the form of massacres at the hands of the Balkan pact members, especially the Serbs", more irrelevant nonsense in an attempt to mitigate the genocide of a people under the direct control of the Ottoman Empire.

4. "it is absurd to call what happened to the Armenians in Anatolia (with similar proportions) genocide, and that the genocide claim is just being used against the losing side in the First World War.", unsourced merde, used as some pathetic attempt to rationalize genocide.

5. "Muslims were attacked, killed, moved about, and killed by Christian states in both the Balkans and in the north and south Caucasus.", in another attempt at mitigating, killed has to be mentioned twice in one sentence. What impudence! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see why you are so emotional about it. It is a heavy topic, I understand, but still- you are not even Armenian and have absolutely nothing to do with it. The only thing I'm irked about is that you deleted my quote, which you will not discuss. I gave you a link to the edit in which you deleted the quote. Did you even look at it? You are still sidestepping the discussion, and changing the topic. Other edits are off topic. I want to know why you deleted the quote- this edit [[33]] (I give you the edit changes link again). If its just an accident we are fine. If it is just a misunderstanding, I would be happy to forgive you.

This is not my opinion- and I am certainly not trying to "rationalize" the genocide as you claim. I am not Turkish, nor am I overwhelmingly sympathetic towards the Turks. Personally I think that no matter what the Turks pull, nothing can deny their country's guilt in the killing of a large number of Armenians and the near-extinction of Armenians in a considerable chunk of their former homeland.

It is funny how you say this because just the other day I was accused of being too pro-Armenian on some forum, and that I was some sort of Armenian propagandist just for voicing an opinion that the genocide occurred. But alas, everyone on either side is so incredibly emotional about the issue that it blocks out any attempt at a reasonable debate- therefore, apparently I am a Turk propagandist and Armenian propagandist at the same time.

The truth, however, is that, yes, the regions were "emptied of over a million Turks". I, personally, have heard Turks use this to say that the designation of what is and what isn't a genocide is not balanced (they will never concede that their government had a plan to wipe out the Armenians in the Ottomon Empire, so to them its pretty much the same thing). That is why it belongs in Turkish denial. I am pretty sure the opinion is in print somewhere, however I have not gone to great lengths to find it, so if you want to request a quote there that would be good.

The thing is that a lot of the reason the Turks find it difficult to admit is that they have a strong feeling of being persecuted themselves, not in the least because of these events, and it would be good for the article to include that. That's why I put it up there, not because I have some agenda to draw attention away from the killings of Armenians. Nor am I trying to rationalize genocide

The presence of the Albanian reference is because this behavior by Serbia, Greece and the rest is well-known in Turkey, and it goes under a long list of other things (including the Circassian Genocide as well) that I have heard Turks, and many other people have, say that could be recognized as genocide if you call the Armenian genocide... a genocide. Yes, I suppose you are right that that is OR- though I'm sure we could probably find at least some quote by a Turkish politician or something like that somewhere. And the reference to Kurds is that the Kurds may also use their victimization by the Russian/Armenian forces (you know, what happened to them before the Turks themselves started having issues with them) as a claim to say it was two way as well. The Kurds and Armenians, although they seem to have coinciding interests today, also have a lot of disputes- as you can see just by paying a short visit to any Kurdish forum and looking up Armenian claims to the Van region. Armenians meanwhile (including Armenians on wikipedia) often will blame Kurds for the genocide (which is not really incorrect, as they were the Ottomons' irregular troops). So that's why the Kurdish reference is there. It is not to rationalize the genocide or anything. --Yalens (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And yes, if you care, the reason I deleted the or was because the reason of your edit summary said that it was the 1 million figure, which of course, was given. Though frankly, I don't really care that much about an OR tag as it is, in a sense, OR.--Yalens (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So instead of dealing with the issues, which have been clearly explained, you continue this rant of emotional. Apparently, you are too emotional to understand how original research is a direct violation of wikipedia. As such original research should be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."[34] --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I have requested a quotation. In any case, I somehow, mysteriously, still lack an explanation for why you deleted the quote.

I am not the one who is emotional. I am not the one who called the other impudent, and accused them of ranting, and of trying to rationalize genocide (completely contrary to the truth). I would be perfectly happy to discuss this in a non-confrontational manner, one that does not involve such accusations. --Yalens (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your quote did not support what was in the sentence(as explained here earlier...[35]), is that clear enough? Technically, since what you have written is OR, I should have just deleted all of that(which I am sure you would have called "emotional"). This now has been explained, again. As for confrontational, 1)I asked for page numbers, you then stated; " I would appreciate to not be yelled at.",[36] thus trying to imply(ie. ranting) from the beginning this fantasy of yours that I am emotional. Pity you have not wasted as much time finding sources to support your Original Research. I would suggest in your case that you focus your attention to finding sources that support your "opinion" or it will be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

When I said initially that I would appreciate not to be yelled at, I was not responding to you, but to David Roman, because of this edit, where he did- [[37]]. And yes, I believe that the assumption that I am a Turkish propagandist or at least otherwise trying somehow to rationalize the genocide is emotional, not to mention that I am apparently "impudent". I have had editing conflicts with people that are actually from the Caucasus on other historical issues (Ossetians, one Armenian, etc.), but we have at least managed to keep from randomly throwing insults like "impudent" at each other, nor did they overtly assume I had some ulterior motive in editing other than to put stuff up on wikipedia. What is funny is that people like you and User:David Roman, who don't even seem to be from the Caucasus (your profile says you are a German-Scottish-English-French-somethingelse American; his name certainly sounds Western to me as well), get far more emotional, and that's odd.

I have not protested against you calling the opinions OR (they are not necessarily mine, mind you), and you can delete them (I assume the reader would be able to infer them anyways). You cannot, however, delete the sourced material. I am quite sure a reader can infer the importance of the effect of the Balkan Wars on the Armenian Genocide, so it is wrong to delete it. --Yalens (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Your material is not sourced(Issues #1 and #4, Issues #2, #3 and #5 being irrelevant to the Armenian Genocide), hence it is OR. As for my racial background(which is irrelevant, oddly just like issues #2 and #3), is not relevant for any article I edit on wikipedia. I will ignore your racist comment. As for your continued use of "Turkish propagandist", unless you can prove I posted that(which is borderline incivility:(d) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them.), I would suggest you desist in your accusations along with your little mantra of people being "emotional" and questioning the ethnic background of other editors. Your unwillingness to address your WP:OR and continued statements on my talk page of "emotional" and comments on my ethnic background is harassment. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you'd give the time to read my whole post here thoroughly, as I am tired of this and I also feel like much of it is do to misunderstandings as well as myself being overly defensive about the matter, nor do I want to even have it... You have deleted my reply to you, and I admit, perhaps I am being too confrontational there. I am sorry for my side of our dispute here (although I still do not take lightly incorrect accusations of me trying to rationalize genocide- i.e. the final stage of genocide- or that I am racist or "impudent"). In the future I acknowledge that I should discuss primarily the material and not the actions and rhetoric of other users, and I am wrong for doing so. I am writing now for two things- to reply to your accusation that I am racist (the one thing I feel I need to respond to) and to suggest a compromise. To deal with the first as fast as possible, I am sure you know the intent of that was to say that since you are not Armenian and I am not Turkish, there is no need to be so (what I call) emotional about this. But I apologize if it did offend you in any way. Can we please focus instead on the material? I am not the best diplomat, and I need to work on that. But I don't want to quarrel with you, I want to find a middle ground.

Basically, what I propose is such. You can delete the Turkish viewpoint stuff ("Issues" #1 and #4) but leave the rest which is sourced but you call irrelevant.

I wanted the Turkish viewpoint stuff in there so people can understand what it is that prevents the Turks from acknowledging what they did, what the psychological barrier is. But I suppose you are right in saying that it isn't sourced (even though I have personal experience hearing it plenty, that is in fact, original research as you say).

However, the suffering of Albanians (the allies of the Turks during the First Balkan War, and at least their emotional allies during the First World War) at the hands of Serbs and Greeks is not irrelevant, as it is included in a long list of things which make Turks feel as if former Ottomon Muslims are uniquely denied historical rights, and that there is a bias against them (leading to the claim that calling what happened to the Armenians is Genocide -as is in fact historically correct- is just another manifestation of this bias). In addition, the effect of the Greek-Turkish war in the early 1920s is not unimportant either. In all three of these conflicts, Great Powers (Russia and Britain as well others such as Austria, Italy or Germany, to a lesser extent) aided the Balkan states at various points in their wars where they all attacked simultaneously the Turks and their allies (the Albanians in the First Balkan War). In my opinion, it is important for someone to know that to understand why the Turks find it very difficult to admit that they committed genocide. As I am sure you probably know, Turkish narrative about the Balkan Wars and World War I will focus on how they were being attacked by multiple enemies at the same time, often focusing on the narrative of Gallipoli where so many Turks died in small areas in a small peninsula, desperately trying to protect Anatolia and Turkish Thrace from being taken over. It also, yes, focuses on the offenses by Christian states against the Turks as well as other Muslims that fell under their control. What the Turks refuse to acknowledge is that their state had a plot to wipe out all the Armenians on their lands- precisely the one difference (aside from scale) between the actions of the Christian states and the Ottomon Empire. Atrocities committed by the Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek and Montenegrin armies were tolerated by their governments and perhaps encouraged at times, but they haven't been proven (at least not yet) to be part of an organized plan to erase the presence of a people from an area. Another element, I should note, is the Circassian Genocide, which many Turks know of (Turkey was where fleeing Circassians mainly settled in, in addition to Middle Eastern and Balkan countries to a lesser extent) and many are even descended from Circassians partially. What Russia did the Circassians is similar to what the Turks did to the Armenians- huge massacres paired with massive deportations with the explicit aim of ridding an area of a problematic ethnic group threatening control of the region. The lack of recognition for the Circassian Genocide (much less than the Armenian Genocide) also encourages the xenophobic view that the world is once again, trying to gang up on Turkey by using the Armenian Genocide, and that recognizing that as a genocide is unfair given that these other offenses (some of which could legitimately called Genocide, as is the case with the Circassians by Russia; others not) are not recognized as such. I am not saying that this is rational, as it isn't really- it is based on a feeling of victimhood and xenophobia. Nothing can deny that the Turkish government tried to systematically erase the Armenian presence in Eastern Anatolia. But I just think their views are important for the topic of explaining why the issue isn't resolved. Sorry for typing all that and if you read it all, I thank you.

Would you agree to leaving the cited material (#2,3,5) but not the uncited material?--Yalens (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for watching for vandalism. If you can please put these two on your list: [38] and [39] beside this of course Nezami Ganjavi. Thank you and may your type multiply in wiki.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What do we call descendants of Oghuz tribes in English? The Muslim people in Turkey who are not Tatar, Zaza, Albanian, Kurd, Circussian, Krygiz, Georgian, Armenian are descendants of Oghuz tribes. In Turkish, we call it Türkmen (Abdülkadir Aksu Türkmen'dir); but Turkmen is used for people from Turkmenistan in English. In Turkish we also use "Oğuz" (for example Abdullah Gül Oğuz Türkü'dür), but in English it refers to historical Oghuz tribes. Kavas (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hasan Celal Güzel is a friend of Aksu family, he says he knows his parents, both of them are Türkmen (see the above question) and neither of them are Kurds. For the Albanian hypothesis, I found a source in Vikipedi, the source is a biography book (http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd%C3%BClkadir_Aksu). Kavas (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The alleged armenian genocide is commonly referred to as "sözde ermeni soykırımı" in Turkish. This can be confirmed by any native speaker of Turkish or simply via Google. So please keep your anti-Turkic propaganda to yourself and do not edit parts you have no expertise over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmhm (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can show me the part where the consensus was reached as to name it "Ermeni Soykırımı" I may as well attempt to reach a counter consenses. Until then, please keep your anti-Turkish propaganda to yourself and avoid making any changes to topic you have no expertise over. --Tmhm (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Ermeni Soykirimi" would be the direct translation of Armenian Genocide, not some Turkish government anti-Armenian rhetoric. I would suggest you watch your civility on wikipedia and use the talk page. Stating "Ermeni Soykirimi" is not anti-Turkish, simply a your pathetic attempt to justify your contentious editing. I will continue to edit where I like. Your puerile accusations mean nothing here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi bear. Please comment about Talk:Zilan massacre. A user from Turkish Wikipedia added groundless template with only his own opinion (without sources). His argument is nonsense. He insists that the Zilan massacre (July 1930) commited in Ararat rebellion (1926-1930) isn't massacre. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. If you tell me what all of this is supposed to mean;

Kansas Bear sadece benim değil, bir çok Türk yazarın nefretini toplayan biridir, editlerini kontrol edersen Türkiye aleyhine çalıştığını görebilirsin. pkk'nın quotelarını sayfalara taşıyabilecek kadar medeniyetsiz bir kişiliğe sahiptir kendileri. istiyorsan kendisine söyleyebilirsin bunları. bu yazıyı ingilizceye çevirip beni şikayet edebilirsin de.

Yukaridaki yazara karşı ortak tavır almalıyız. Adam Türk karşıtı ileri derecede ırkçı biri. pkk'nın açıklamalarını quote gösterecek kadar sapık birisi. ona karşı tavır almalıyız.

Kavas ve Takabeg, arkadaşlar farkında değilsiniz belki ama terör örgütünün uydurduğu şeyleri wikiye taşıyorsunuz. dersim'in havadan bombalanması yalandır. bomba yüklenebilen ilk uçaklar dersim ayaklanması sırasında avrupa fabrikalarında birer prototipti. daha üretime geçmemiş uçakların türkiye tarafından satın alınıp sivillere karşı kullanılması yalandır. dersimde ölen vatandaşlarımız olduğu doğrudur ama bunların masum sivillerden oluştuğu yalandır. t.c. masum sivillere karşı katliam yapmamıştır. Kansas Bear gibi Türk düşmanı editörlere şirin gözükmek için ülkenizi satmayın. 10 yıl sonra Kansas Bear gibi adamlara itibar edilmeyecek. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your non-response as a "NO". --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"I and many Turkish editors hate Kansas Bear who is editing against Turkey. He is such uncivilized that he uses PKK quotes in pages. You can translate this to English and I could be reported. He is a nationalist(racist) man and he does not like Turks. We should collabrate against him. Kavas and Takabeg, you must realize that you are pushing terrorist lies into Wiki. Dersim is not bombed. ... Don't be a traitor to make Kansas Bear like you since KansasBear will not be respected 10 years later". Kavas (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I was unaware that I hated anyone. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In your recent edits[40], you used "ibid.", which is not used here on wikipedia. Just thought I'd let you know so you can make the appropriate changes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Takabeg (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, he uses ibid in many pages, [41]. Kavas (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You say it's not WP:RS [42], why? Kavas (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I said I wasn't sure it would qualify as a WP:RS considering the magazine, Economist, probably isn't known for its accuracy concerning an individual's ethnicity. I think you might be more worried about this edit[43], which removed that sentence and the reference supporting it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I was worried about this when I saw it in my watchlist. But after I saw your comment, I was no more worried. Kavas (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Selçuk Akşin Somel, did not recognize a battle in 1363 or 1364, since the "Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire" only mentions the battle of Chermanon(1371).[44] --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In which article and pages of that book ? As far as I know, Somel isn't a specialist about medieval history. But you can give this information with sources. Takabeg (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Here[45]Page xviii, and here [46]Page 103.

• This French source[47]Page 81, calls the battle in 1371, "Sirp sindidi".
• This source[48](page 73) states that Haci Ilbegi was still alive in 1371. According to the "The New Cambridge Medieval History: c. 1300-c. 1415", by Michael Jones, Rosamond McKitterick, page 850[49];

"The Ottoman victory over Serb-Bulgarian forces may also have occurred twice, in the early 1360s and in 1371......"

I find it odd that so many historians have gotten confused concerning this battle(s). Many have Murad fighting the battle, yet he was in Anatolia. Many have "sirp sindigi" for a battle in 1363/64 and others 1371. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is quite interesting[50], Chronica Johannis de Reading et Anonymi Cantuariensis, page 308.

According to Ostrogorsky, "After the disaster on the Maritza River in September 1371("after the destruction of the despot Ugljesa at the hands of the Ishmaelites") --the Life of St. Niphon relates....", in "Observations on the Aristocracy in Byzantium", Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 25, (1971), page 26. Published by Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Common name in English is Battle of Sardarabad. Takabeg (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

And what does this have to do with me? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted your changing title :) I'll solve that. Now, let's change the title of Kurdish diaspora to Kurdish population. Otherwise some user try to remove information about Kurds in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria. You know what kind of users try to remove them : ) Takabeg (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I do not believe I have ever edited that article. As for Turco85; your following Takabeg to my talk page constitutes stalking. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Takabeg, I am not trying to remove 'some information'. I am trying to stop your propaganda.Turco85 (Talk) 13:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi I tried to fix these non-constructive and harmful edits. Now please control the article Abdullah Öcalan. I think this user tries to use Wikipedia as the field of his propaganda. Takabeg (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Instead of edit-warring with individuals that clearly have hatred and intolerance towards Kurds and anything Kurdish, take Turco's "sources" to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Report any continued deletion of references to Admins. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Next time I will use Noticeboard. And do you know him. I cannot think he is a beginner. See you. Takabeg (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Undoubtedly a sockpuppet of some other editor so they can remove content they find unpalatable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ozgurcan86 (Ozgurcan86's edit in the article Yılmaz Güney)
• IP from Paris (IP from Paris, IP from Paris's edit in the article Yılmaz Güney)
• Aniosgel

• IP from London (maybe different person) in the article Yılmaz Güney

• In Turkish Wikipedia he was blocked with same reason (Anti-Kurdish edits) and all of those accounts were detected to belong to same person:
• Aniosgel
• Khis
• Ozgurcan86
• IP from Paris

Takabeg (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, I would suggest posting your information on the talk page of an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I think there is a great deal mis-information about central Asia. I was merely trying to point the fact that Central Asian states are Turco-Persian not Turco-Mongol as stated in the detail. Timur considered himself Turkic & his court language was Turkic/Persian not Mongolian. He was considered usurper by Mongolian Chenghizid rulers of the region.This is no different than say Slavs & non-slavs like Nordic nations, although they live next to each other. --User:Kapitop 08:27, 22 November 2010

Now I get your point. You are indeed a religious fanatic bigot ! They don't need any reference ! --User:Kapitop 08:29, 9 December 2010

You changed referenced information. You posted no source to support your opinion.

You changed barbarians to Christians. You posted no source to support your opinion.

You posted a childish personal attack on my talk page. I am finished with you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You should add User:Tmhm[51] to that list. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Merci. Takabeg (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, if you have evidence of WP:Disruptive editing (by User:Karfiol or others), please feel free to bring it to my attention; I am an administrator and am watching the situation. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey KansasBear. Find a template that most closely matches the one you want to create, then take note of the exact file name of the template, search for that page using the [[Template:X]] format, then just fiddle with the old template inserting the titles and links you wish to use. Get the pattern at [[Template:Armies of the Soviet Army]] - I've nowiki'd the template so you can see the name, but just search for it and you'll find it - into a userspace draft page, and then just keep fiddling with inserting the names of your battles etc, and it's actually quite easy. Please don't hesitate to ask me for further help. As for the genocide page, I'll watch it for a bit and then figure out what action to start taking. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm watching Genocides in history closely now, and saw your Franciesian monks (sp) attribution edit. Go ahead, with my encouragement. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page(again) the sentences that are unreferenced and the parts of sentences that are clearly not referenced. I also mentioned one of the references that make no mention of the Ottoman Empire or the view(s) held by the Ottoman Empire, which therefore is useless by context. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Kansas Bear, if you have a time, please control sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kansas Bear,

you are of the opinion that the sources I use to support the view that Corunna was a French strategic victory are questionable. I believe they are sound, since they are based on thorough research by the webmasters of those sites. May I ask you why my sources should continue to be flagged, in light of the evidence they bring to bear?

your truly, Schpinbo (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Schpinbo

Anyone can make a website to say whatever they want. Your "sources" are not peer-reviewed or published. Whereas, you are contesting published, peer-reviewed sources, one of which is by a military historian that specializes in Napoleonic history. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the substance of the matter? That the French won a strategic victory at Corunna?

Schpinbo (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Schpinbo

You have a peer-reviewed published source? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• "A history of France from the earliest times to the present day", Volume 3, by William Deans, p183;"Thus Marshal Soult, with all his advantages both in point of superiority of numbers and strength of artillery, was signally defeated in the battle of Corunna...".
• "Military Commanders: The 100 Greatest Throughout History", by Nigel Cawthorne, p99;"But outside Corunna, he turned and defeated Soult.".
• "The Portuguese Army of the Napoleonic Wars", by Otto von Pivka, Michael Roffe, p5;"The army disintegrates under the gruelling conditions; it partly redeems itself by its defensive victory at Corunna on 16 January 1809, to cover its own embarkation." --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly citing sources that speak to the British tactical victory - with the rather impatient use of bold lettering - does not speak to, let alone refute, my point about a French strategic victory. Do you want to have a conversation, or do you want to be right? If the latter, I suggest you consult the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_about_winning

Schpinbo (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Schpinbo

The bolding is to indicate the title of the book. I suggest you read your own link, since I have yet to find a published source stating a French victory and you continue to ignore 5 sources I have provided. I deal in facts, not opinions. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of Talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Talk:Garadaghly Massacre, Talk:Agdaban massacre ? Takabeg (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Salut Kansas Bear,

Although it may look as if I am "stalking you", "running after you" or "pursuing you", please be assured that I am not: it just happens that we keep watch on many of the same articles, so our paths often cross. Just beware not to bump into me when I come in with my "heavies"[52].

Hope you had a nice Christmas.

--Frania W. (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Hope you had a merry Christmas as well, Frania. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As merry as could be. Finish the year in style. FW

I received a nice bottle of Glenmorangie Nectar d'Or. :-D --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A nice bottle to finish the year in style, and maybe you need another one to start the new one in style also. By the way, are you of drinking age? --Frania W. (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know the Toccata for percussion instruments by Carlos Chávez? FW

Actually I am double the drinking age for the U.S. As for the Toccata, it does not sound familiar. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Double the age? Then double the drinks! The Toccata is an old piece composed in 1942.[53] It's unbelievable! Three movements, lasts about 15 minutes, only percussion instruments, and you have to hear it l o u d. [54]

¡Hasta luego! --Frania W. (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, I'm afraid I don't know anything about this subject, so I doubt I can be much help there. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The story developed in this way. It was presumed that he was taken to Uzbekistan together with his father and died there. but, later in 1421 he re-appeared as a claimant to the throne, and with his army captured Edirne for One or more dates are given in Turkish wiki.. Therefore people called him DÜZMECE ~false or phony in this sense. He was killed on 1422 and Mehmed I became the Sultan.

Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

how many time i told you about ataturk??

he was never albanian himself ok? he was Yörük turkmen himself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahindakan (talk • contribs) 12:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion means nothing here. If you continue to remove references and referenced information you will be explaining your actions to an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

and you believe to western propaganda and why? the western Propaganda changed ataturk's origin turks to albanian or slav or more??

dude

you have to Watch this about His ancestors

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed00-b9ZaEY

every peoples in macedonia or balkan says that ataturk were turkmen and ancestors came from anatolia to balkan,

According to an guy from village in kocacik (Like ataturk's father came from in kocacik)

Kocacık Köyünden Veyis Lemo (76), Atatürkün atalarının Karaman kökenli olduklarını, Kızıloğuzlar yörüklerinden oldukları için Kızıl lakabıyla tanındıklarını söyledi.

Translate to English

Veyis Lemo (76 year old) from Kocacik village said atatürk's ancestors came from Karaman and they were called "kizil" (Red) Because they were from Kiziloguz Yörük Tribe,

Source: http://www.hurriyet.de/haberler/gundem/342603/ataturkun-baba-ocagi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahindakan (talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Which changes nothing and does not justify the removal of references. FYI, none of your sources are published. Continued use of the term "western propaganda" will be seen as battleground mentality. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Western Propanganda steals every history ok?

Time, 24-Mar-1923, DETAILS: Where is the Turk his own master read what it had to say on the matter you asked me before _ unstained reputation. Some of these wild reports charged him with being anything from a traitor to his country to being a "foreigner." Kemal is pure Turk (not, as some have said, a Jew) and has proved to the whole world that he is the core of Modern Turkey.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,726976,00.html#ixzz18pnedDGl

Please You dont Put ataturk in albanian list ok?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahindakan (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what is the point of this : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=House_of_Plantagenet&action=historysubmit&diff=404928987&oldid=404927455 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.104.109 (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What was the point of you changing it? What did you write in the edit summary? Did you supply a reference to support your claim? Did you post on the talk page an explanation of your change(s)?

Whereas what you changed, was within this paragraph;

The name Plantagenet has origins as a nickname of Geoffrey V of Anjou derived from the name of a shrub, the common broom, known in Latin as the Planta genista. It is claimed the nickname arose because Geoffrey of Anjou wore a sprig of the common broom in his hat. The significance has been said to relate to its golden flower and contemporary belief in its vegetative soul. Since the 15th century, Plantagenet has been applied retrospectively to the descendants of Geoffrey of Anjou as their surname. There is barely any contemporary evidence for the name before the mid fifteenth century, and the house itself used no surname until the legitimist claimant Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York, father of both Edward IV and Richard III, assumed the name about 1448.

all of which is referenced by this source; "Dr. John S Plant (2007), "The Tardy Adoption of the Plantagenet Surname". --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bonne Année 2011 !

Bonne Année 2011 ! --Frania W. (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
That is awesome. Thanks Frania! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It could be reduced, but I would even make it bigger if I knew how! FW

Hello Kansas Bear. You filed an enforcement request at Wikipedia:AE#User:Atab.C9.99y which seems to be saying that User:Atabek violated a 1RR restriction. Can you be more specific as to how he is under a 1RR? The sanction in WP:ARBAA expired after one year. I've left a comment in the admin section of the AE that explains my puzzlement. The entry in WP:RESTRICT, stating that he is under an indefinite 1RR, appears to be wrong if you compare it to WP:ARBAA. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that all editors that edit Armenian-Azerbaijan articles are under a 1RR/week restriction. If this is not the case then an explanation as to what intent is my name listed here[55].

As per this[56], Atabek is listed among those editors under supervision[57]. You might contact User talk:Moreschi for further details. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Your diffs seem to be echoing the fact that Atabek was restricted under the first ARBAA case. Can you find a link showing that an admin placed any further restriction on him? If there was one, it ought to be in his talk page history. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This was referred back to Arbcom for clarification, and they now agree that those restricted by name under the first WP:ARBAA are no longer under a 1RR/week. (Unless they got restricted later, due to enforcement). To reflect this, WP:RESTRICT has been updated by User:NuclearWarfare. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tahsin: I've blocked the anon IP who was removing sourced data and had violated 3RR. Please bring any other persistent violators to my notice. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Only way we can try is to start their individual IP talk pages. Just keep trying, and keep trying to talk about issues beyond the bounds of what you would usually consider a reasonable degree of trying-to-be-polite. Admins can always be called if these people are completely unresponsive. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Although Frania de Lutèce prefers champagne

Thanks, Frania. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a right to oppose what I said in the article. I apologize if I was too arrogant. To avoid incivility, and to make it easier to discuss the article with you, here is the list of changes I am planning. Please comment on it, and help me with the article.

1- Include "Important to the Seljuqs' self image was their belief that they were destined to rule the world as a master race... Mahmud of Kashgar wrote 'I have seen that God has caused the Sun of Empire to rise in the house of the Turks.' Although this 'master race' was Turkish, their bureaucrats and courtiers spoke Persian. Nizam al-Mulk describes the administration of the Seljuq sultanate and the pompous court rituals of former Persian dynasties. " The Cambridge Illusrated History of the Islamic World, page 39, Cambridge University Press, 1996 in the article somehow.

2- Change the last sentence of the second paragraph into something along these lines: 'The Great Seljuks adopted Persian as their language, and their culture and identity was influenced by Arab-Persian elements, and Byzantine court traditions, as well as their own Turcoman past, though the Persian influence was the heaviest.'

3- Change "Their reign is characterized by Persian astronomers such as Omar Khayyám, and the Persian philosopher al-Ghazali." to "During their reign the Seljuks gave patronage to scholars such as the Persian astronomer, poet, and mathematician Omar Khayyam and the Islamic philosopher and jurist al-Gazali."

4- Reduce amount of sources cited for every single word.. As i have explained in the talk page of the article with my King Richard example.

5- Possibly) remove the constant statement of nationality before every person and state in the article.

For now, I was thinking of doing this. Later I was hoping to add on the origins of the Seljuks, their coversion to Islam, and perhaps a "Culture" section. ---Seljuq--- (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Where are you putting this? Also, some might find the term "master race" rather arrogant.
2. You will need references for "Arab-Persian elements".
3. So you don't want to call al-Ghazali a "Persian" philosopher? I am sure there are others that may feel differently.
4. Those "sources" are the result of discussions that have called certain aspects of this article into question.
5. This needs to be clarified and specified. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

1- OK, you might be right. Maybe that shouldn't be included. 2- The source provided, the quote from Prof. Koprulu, seems to be suggesting this. 3- We can call Al-Ghazali Persian. That's not the point. I just think the sentence should be reworded. 4- Maybe it would better for them to be under, say, external links, or so. Right now, it makes it cumbersome to read. I am copying and pasting the same thing I wrote in the main article:

       "Richard the Lionhearted was an English king (see book a, book b, book c, book d, book e, book f, book g, book h, book i, book j) who participated in the Third Crusade (see Book a, book c, book d, book l, book n, book x)."

       OR "Richard the Lionhearted was an English king who participated in the Third Crusade(see book a, book d)

   Which one is better? Provided that "Book a" and "Book d" are reliable sources I don't see the need for the first example. Right now the article reads like the first example say at Highly Persianized[9][10][11][12] in culture[16][17][18] and language,[9][19][20][21][22] instead of writing so, Highly Persianized in culture and language,[9][16][20] (an example and only an example) ---Seljuq--- (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

5- Never mind that. No need.