User talk:Kansas Bear

JSTOR This user has access to JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library

Happy New Year!

Kansas Bear,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Wario-Man (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Hi Kansas Bear, in regards to your reverting of my paragraph, maybe we could come to an agreement? I was wondering why you have deleted it as it only shows ancestry going back futher than recorded. Is it the fact that I have referred the Richard's ancestors without citations? Many thanks, JuliusCaesar16

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

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

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

Your GA nomination of Anne de Pisseleu d'Heilly

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anne de Pisseleu d'Heilly you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caeciliusinhorto -- Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

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

Hello

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

Your GA nomination of Anne de Pisseleu d'Heilly

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

GA nomination of Jovian

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

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

Hello

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

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

Muhiy369's edit warring

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

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

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

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

Misrepresentation of sources

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

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

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

March Madness 2020

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

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

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

Sikh Territorial Gains, keeping article neutral

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

First off, learn to sign your posts.

I am guessing this is user:WorldWikiAuthorOriginal who is blocked for sockpuppetry. I see nothing on the article talk page that supports your version. CambridgeBayWeather protected the article due to "Persistent disruptive editing", not as a sign of consensus. Also, if this is user:WorldWikiAuthorOriginal, I suggest you stop editing and wait for your block to expire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not the user you mentioned and never had an account. I have been editor since 2018 on various articles. You can see my history and have never been blocked. While back I read the article and after going through whole article, it clearly showed territorial gains and had the result originally as Sikh Victory. But IseeFire1001 same as IP 120... had an issue it seems if you go through history and the user you mentioned earlier changed the result from Sikh Victory to Sikh Territorial Gains. I have also added the discussion in the talk page which eventually you could have done too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.85 (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems you can not form consensus and can not bring any sources to back your claim. All you can do is edit war what user:WorldWikiAuthorOriginal added to the article(without consensus or sources) and claim you are not that user. Continue to edit war unsourced information into the article, since that is all you can do.

• "I have also added the discussion in the talk page which eventually you could have done too."

You added nothing. What you added was not a discussion, just your opinion with no sources to support your opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You are clearly not going to be part of understanding which seems due to your own personal views and sentiments. Article clearly states what the result is. Consensus was already done if you look at the previous history while back but you are ignoring it and reverting due to your own personal point of view. So end of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.106 (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You are clearly are pushing your personal POV into the article since you have ZERO sources to support your personal opinion. You think you can arbitrarily decide when consensus was reached with zero discussion and zero sources! That is not how Wikipedia works and when you have no discussion and no sources to support your personal views and sentiments, you edit war! These are the facts and your personal views are what you think forms consensus. So end of discussion! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead with a block of Special:Contributions/199.82.243.0/25. Do you perceive any significance in the WHOIS pointing to fedex.com in Tennessee? I guess you think this is WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk · contribs). Let me know if you think other IP blocks might be justified. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

IF what the IP says can be trusted they are not WorldWikiAuthorOriginal, although another pro-Sikh editor Jaaandip whose editing is similar to WorldWikiAuthorOriginal, has reappeared(Jaandip). If the IP restarts their disruptive editing, I will let you know. Thanks.

Jaaandip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Its a pity these IPs and editors can not understand what original research is and that if another editor opposes their OR that does not mean that editor has an agenda! smh --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)