This is an old revision of this page, as edited by O Fenian (talk | contribs) at 01:25, 15 February 2010 (→Sockpuppets). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:25, 15 February 2010 by O Fenian (talk | contribs) (→Sockpuppets)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
Could you have a look
At these contributions here and here thanks. BigDunc 10:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I take it from your inaction that you intend to do nothing, I will inform Domer that 2 reverts are now allowed while on 1rr per week probation. BigDunc 09:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- The second of those is clearly not a revert so no breach of 1RR. Valenciano (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- So you are saying that is not a revert of that? Looks to be a clear breach of 1RR to me. O Fenian (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've been too busy to take a look, but if someone feels that a breach has occurred, try taking it to WP:AE. --Elonka 17:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- You weren't to busy to make 37 edits before my post and your reply hmmm, Domer gets a block and probation extension aprox 10 seconds after a breach, makes you wonder if someone is grinding an axe. BigDunc 17:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's a matter of time available. Sometimes I help out in the Troubles topic area, sure, but I'm also doing other things on Misplaced Pages (like right now I'm deep into untangling messes related to medieval Christianity in Asia). Or in other words, "Troubles-monitoring" is not my 24/7 job. So please, if you think there was a breach, take it to WP:AE. --Elonka 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- So your not the new flag carrier for all troubles related stuff, seems like you have went from uninvolved admin to just plian old uninvolved. So you dont have a spare 10 seconds to look at a clear breach, it is at AE already but there it will stay and get closed due to inaction, typical. BigDunc 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's a matter of time available. Sometimes I help out in the Troubles topic area, sure, but I'm also doing other things on Misplaced Pages (like right now I'm deep into untangling messes related to medieval Christianity in Asia). Or in other words, "Troubles-monitoring" is not my 24/7 job. So please, if you think there was a breach, take it to WP:AE. --Elonka 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- You weren't to busy to make 37 edits before my post and your reply hmmm, Domer gets a block and probation extension aprox 10 seconds after a breach, makes you wonder if someone is grinding an axe. BigDunc 17:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've been too busy to take a look, but if someone feels that a breach has occurred, try taking it to WP:AE. --Elonka 17:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- So you are saying that is not a revert of that? Looks to be a clear breach of 1RR to me. O Fenian (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- The second of those is clearly not a revert so no breach of 1RR. Valenciano (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait, you go on at Elonka for a full page in the above thread about her actions in this topic but run to her the next time you think there's a problem in the same area? Am I the only one that's confused here? Shell 19:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yep your confused, it is her actions and lack thereof that I am talking about. BigDunc 19:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- No actually I'm not. First you go on for days that she's handling AE incorrectly and now you're berating her for not jumping when you wanted something done relating the AE in the area you've already complained about. Elonka hasn't been appointed a "guardian" of the Troubles AE; you know how to properly handle things if you have an issue. Shell 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your still confused and it is coming, just trying to resolve before hand. BigDunc 19:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Mongol conquest of Jerusalem
I looked over the sources cited at Mongol raids in Palestine for the alleged conquest of Jerusalem in 1300, and the only historian I see there cited as disagreeing is Schein in her Gesta Dei per Mongolos. So I read it. It is not clear to me at all that she denies the Mongols held Jerusalem. There is one non-European contemporary source for it. It is, all in all, completely unexceptional. A large, powerful army invaded a rather weakly-defended territory belong to its chief enemy and had control of it for some four months or so, including the strategically unimportant, but religiously significant, city of Jerusalem. Schein highlights how much Christendom could, in a Jubilee year especially, magnify such a non-event into a miraculous turning point in their fortunes. So can you cite a historian who denies explicitly that the Mongols had control of Jerusalem? I think the sources we have cited say that they did. And it is not a big deal. Certainly their brief running-over of Palestine represents nothing objective in connexion with Europe, only subjectively in those fourteenth-century imaginations. Srnec (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- There was not a large powerful army in Palestine, there were just some raids for a few months, and when the Egyptians returned from Cairo, the Mongols retreated without resistance. For more info, I recommend reading Reuven Amitai's article. If you don't have JSTOR access, let me know and I'll send you a copy. --Elonka 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- I said "large, powerful" because (i) Ghazan himself appeared to be present with his forces and (ii) it was large and powerful relative to the completely absent Mameluke army. I am relying here on Schein, 810. Amitai confirms all this except Ghazan's presence (244–47). Every source I have read confirms that Mongol forces entered Jerusalem and that for a brief period of time (on the order of months) there was no other authority in the entire region of Palestine. Baibars gives the Mongol army under Mulay as 10,000- or 20,000-strong (obviously exaggerated greatly, but it does show that my denomination "large" has a contemporary source to back it up!). I think you may be over-reacting to PHG's own version of a Gesta Dei per Mongolos. (By the way, the event of 1299–1300 appears to have been a single "raid" not many.) Srnec (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just Schein and Amitai. Phillips, too, said, "Jerusalem was not taken or even besieged." In any case, isn't this pretty well covered at Mongol raids into Palestine? If you know of other sources, feel free to add them there. My own feeling is that it's not up to us to decide the dispute, we're just here to describe it. Based on my own reading of sources, there is disagreement among the historians, so that's how it's written in the Mongol raids article. We would be doing a disservice to our readers if we were to try and state as categorical fact that the Mongols were in Jerusalem. Instead, we state that there's disagreement, quote what the different historians say in a neutral manner, and then let the reader make up their own mind. --Elonka 03:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that it doesn't seem that there is any disagreement that the Mongols were in Jerusalem in 1300 (both Schein and Amitai say they were). I don't care if we bring this up in the Franco-Mongol article or not (although a treatment like Schein's would belong there). I care that we not invent a dispute where there isn't one. As to Phillips (can I get a page number?), nobody is saying Jerusalem was besieged. Who would have defended it? And what does he mean by "was not taken"? Does he mean that it was not taken as the result of a military action? Then I agree, none of the sources suggest it was. The army just walked in. There was nobody there to defend it. But I don't think Phillips is here nearly so reliable as Schein or Amitai, who are wrestling with the primary sources directly. Did Phillips? If you don't mind, I've left a note on Adam Bishop's talk page to see if he can enlighten us, since the problem seems to be our interpretation of the secondary literature. Srnec (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- How about we centralize this discussion at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine? --Elonka 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea. Just one note though - I don't think Jerusalem's walls were rebuilt after 1244, so it would have been easy to just walk in and take it (and obviously there couldn't have been a siege). I might be wrong about that though. I haven't really looked at the Palestine raids article but I'll put it on the list... Adam Bishop (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- How about we centralize this discussion at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine? --Elonka 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- What I am saying is that it doesn't seem that there is any disagreement that the Mongols were in Jerusalem in 1300 (both Schein and Amitai say they were). I don't care if we bring this up in the Franco-Mongol article or not (although a treatment like Schein's would belong there). I care that we not invent a dispute where there isn't one. As to Phillips (can I get a page number?), nobody is saying Jerusalem was besieged. Who would have defended it? And what does he mean by "was not taken"? Does he mean that it was not taken as the result of a military action? Then I agree, none of the sources suggest it was. The army just walked in. There was nobody there to defend it. But I don't think Phillips is here nearly so reliable as Schein or Amitai, who are wrestling with the primary sources directly. Did Phillips? If you don't mind, I've left a note on Adam Bishop's talk page to see if he can enlighten us, since the problem seems to be our interpretation of the secondary literature. Srnec (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just Schein and Amitai. Phillips, too, said, "Jerusalem was not taken or even besieged." In any case, isn't this pretty well covered at Mongol raids into Palestine? If you know of other sources, feel free to add them there. My own feeling is that it's not up to us to decide the dispute, we're just here to describe it. Based on my own reading of sources, there is disagreement among the historians, so that's how it's written in the Mongol raids article. We would be doing a disservice to our readers if we were to try and state as categorical fact that the Mongols were in Jerusalem. Instead, we state that there's disagreement, quote what the different historians say in a neutral manner, and then let the reader make up their own mind. --Elonka 03:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- I said "large, powerful" because (i) Ghazan himself appeared to be present with his forces and (ii) it was large and powerful relative to the completely absent Mameluke army. I am relying here on Schein, 810. Amitai confirms all this except Ghazan's presence (244–47). Every source I have read confirms that Mongol forces entered Jerusalem and that for a brief period of time (on the order of months) there was no other authority in the entire region of Palestine. Baibars gives the Mongol army under Mulay as 10,000- or 20,000-strong (obviously exaggerated greatly, but it does show that my denomination "large" has a contemporary source to back it up!). I think you may be over-reacting to PHG's own version of a Gesta Dei per Mongolos. (By the way, the event of 1299–1300 appears to have been a single "raid" not many.) Srnec (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is it so difficult to come by uninvolved input?
If you ever read your colleagues asking this question, I hope you will not just recall what happened at AE, but remember to refer them to what happened here (textbook wikihounding). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
?????
Dear Elonka. You have absolutely no right to ask me that . This is totally out of place. No article can be your exclusive domain. This is also completely unfair if you look at the quality of the contributions I am making to this article and its talk page (online sources, balancing). Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am not saying it should be my exclusive domain. There are plenty of other editors who are welcome to participate there. Your actions, however, have become disruptive, especially since you are now de-railing the GA nom. It's time to stop. Please let other editors determine how the article should be written. Please find another article to work on. --Elonka 20:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- No Elonka, I am not derailing anything, quite the contrary. Have you looked at the positive atmosphere on the Talk Page? Even you finally recognized that the Mongols may have been in Jerusalem, while User:Srnec now confirms that "reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" , which is quite a progress knowing how much you attacked me for putting forward this fact in the first place ("This DID NOT HAPPEN!!!")? I am committed to making some of the best, most interesting and most referenced contributions to Misplaced Pages, and I only wish to be your friend and fellow contributor, so please relax and let's have some good cooperative time together! Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Elonka I think you should now retract you threat to me here. As far as I know, you have no right to impose a non-community approved article ban on anybody, especially using threat. This is especially so as an involved Administrator. Combined with the incivility of your posts and your mistaken treatment of historical facts to pursue me , I am afraid you are putting your status of Administrator at risk. I am allowed to edit the Franco-Mongol alliance article (which I created in the first place), and I don't think you have anything substantial to prove your claims of POV-pushing or disruption, beyond pure rethoric . You typically overreact to simply seeing me contributing to articles you tend to consider your own playground: this is much too possessive. I wish to be your friend, and that we could edit peacefully about our common interests. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Where in that diff is a threat of a non-community approved article ban? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Elonka I think you should now retract you threat to me here. As far as I know, you have no right to impose a non-community approved article ban on anybody, especially using threat. This is especially so as an involved Administrator. Combined with the incivility of your posts and your mistaken treatment of historical facts to pursue me , I am afraid you are putting your status of Administrator at risk. I am allowed to edit the Franco-Mongol alliance article (which I created in the first place), and I don't think you have anything substantial to prove your claims of POV-pushing or disruption, beyond pure rethoric . You typically overreact to simply seeing me contributing to articles you tend to consider your own playground: this is much too possessive. I wish to be your friend, and that we could edit peacefully about our common interests. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- No Elonka, I am not derailing anything, quite the contrary. Have you looked at the positive atmosphere on the Talk Page? Even you finally recognized that the Mongols may have been in Jerusalem, while User:Srnec now confirms that "reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" , which is quite a progress knowing how much you attacked me for putting forward this fact in the first place ("This DID NOT HAPPEN!!!")? I am committed to making some of the best, most interesting and most referenced contributions to Misplaced Pages, and I only wish to be your friend and fellow contributor, so please relax and let's have some good cooperative time together! Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
PHG
I just looked at Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul and was rather shocked about the manipulation of sources. There are good sources for the ancient history and archaeology of Marseille, but these are not used in the article (particularly French sources). The statement about Glanum, a Celto-Ligurian settlement taking its name from a Celtic god, is quite misleading and counts as original research. PHG inserted images in the article on Marseille (which he insists on spelling Marseilles) with captions which already indicated that he was pushing another one of his unsupported theories about contacts between different areas/cultures. The images had very little to do with the article (one map was already present in the gallery). I noted that you were filing a RfE, because your Work1 page is still seemingly on my watchlist. My objection to PHG's editing is that he is pushing what might be speculative footnotes as significant parts of a main article, where the sources do not discuss the particular point in any detail. "Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul" is deeply problematic, because of the superficial use of sources. PHG has failed to locate the main sources and has written information which seems misleading and possibly self-invented. It was only just recently that I worked out why PHG was editing Marseille. I would support your one-year extension of a ban on medieval and ancient history. I would also probably suggest that the article on Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul be deleted, because it's so badly sourced and researched. I haven't had time to look at anything else at the moment, but I would suggest you broaden your RfE to include this as an example of WP:OR and cherrypicking in ancient history. Mathsci (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I agree that it's rather disappointing to see him return to this behavior, especially because we just finished the 2-year cleanup on the last batch of PHG articles. If you haven't yet, I recommend also bringing PHG's mentor, Angusmclellan into the loop. --Elonka 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Mathsci. As a matter of fact, my statement about Glanum ("The ancient cities of Glanum (today Saint-Rémy-de-Provence) and Mastramella (today Saint-Blaise) may have been founded by the Greeks in these earlier times") is sourced from The Cambridge ancient history p.754, hardly a disputable source I think, and certainly not Original Research (I can hardly be closer to the source). Of course, if you have alternative information about Glanum, feel free to insert it into the article. Let me dispute your assertion that my sources would be improper. Most of them are now online sources in the English language from scholarly authors, so that so that anybody can check them anytime, and include for this article such luminaries as The Cambridge ancient history, Celtic Inscriptions on Gaulish and British Coins by Beale Poste, The hellenistic world by Frank William Walbank or The History of Cartography by John Brian Harley. Should you have additional sources to bring to the article, I can only be delighted. Be carefull though, as offline French language sources can easily be mis-translated or mis-represented in case your contributions are challenged (I've paid for that). Mes meilleures salutations au soleil du Sud. My very best regards, and thank you for the nice comments. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi PHG, it is my understanding that your mentor, Angus, is trying to get in touch with you. May I strongly suggest that you communicate with him ASAP? --Elonka 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- What am I missing here? Apparently I'm missing something because I find Mathsci's comments confusing. The claim that Glanum owed its name to Glanis wasn't added by PHG so far as I can tell. The Greeks in Gaul piece seems like a passable start. What exactly is the problem here? We've already been over the argument that articles should spring into existence, Athena-like, fully formed and NPOV. This can only rarely happen. It generally takes multiple authors, and multiple versions, to get to that happy state. Criticising PHG for producing a first draft that represents his view is unreasonable. Others can and should edit to fix any biases. It is only if PHG or any other creator seeks to prevent the process of improvement, as was claimed and accepted to be the case at FMA, that there is a problem. As usual, paint me puzzled. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Glanum was excavated by Henri Rolland (1887-1970). It has an extensive literature and is described not as having been settled by the Greeks, but by the Celto-Ligurians under hellenistic influences from the Greek colony in Marseille. The whole pretext of PHG's article seems unscholarly and contradicts the main sources. The fact that he started to do this in a major article like Marseille was where he slipped up: if he'd kept to his walled garden of articles, it would have gone unnoticed. No reputable sources imply that the Greeks went inland to settle St Remy. There are detailed books on the excavations. The settlement in the second century BC used Celto-Ligurian units of measurement and incorporated various hellenistic elements. There are books devoted to the history of Marseille and Provence (in French): PHG has not used them. Even the Michelin guide of Provence would have been a better source. There is for example a book called "Pre-Roman Greeks in Gaul" by Charles Ebel. Why is it not in the references? Why was it not used to write the article? There's a related book by him here. When writing articles, isn't it standard practice to use the best possible sources, not what can be cobbled together online as spurious conjecture? I had to buy Stanley Sadie's Handel concertos myself before embarking on Handel concerti grossi Op.6, because (a) this is the principal existing reference (b) it was stolen from the Cambridge University library. Isn't this how wikipedia articles are normally written? Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Mathsci. Your statement is a bit disputable... My source for the possible foundation of Glanum by the Ionians is the Cambridge ancient history . Do you mean I should drop that, and use the Michelin guide of Provence instead??? Feel free to modify the article in light of what you know though, I have zero problem with that. The Glanum claim is very, very, marginal, and I would have no objection to even drop it from the article if you're uncomfortable with it (too bad for the authority of the Cambridge ancient history though). Just don't put too many Michelin Guide references in :-) Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 08:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Surprise! I'm seeing your Charles Ebel is using the Cambridge Ancient History as a source too , so I guess it's not too bad of a source, is it? :-) I'll read it to see how we can use it in the article. Thanks for pointing us to this author anyway. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 08:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your continued refusal to see the distinction between one throwaway line in a non-specialized tome and specialized articles on the exact topic of pre-Roman settlements in Gaul is not encouraging. I also note that you have added various images to Talk:Marseille. There was already another map of Marseille by Piri Reis in the gallery from a long while back. What's going on? Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- You deny the Cambridge Ancient History, but instead recommend as a source a collection of Misplaced Pages articles published by print-on-demand Alphascript Publishing??? And what's the problem with offering my images on a Talk Page when I can't edit the article itself, please? May I sugggest a cup of tea? Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 10:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your continued refusal to see the distinction between one throwaway line in a non-specialized tome and specialized articles on the exact topic of pre-Roman settlements in Gaul is not encouraging. I also note that you have added various images to Talk:Marseille. There was already another map of Marseille by Piri Reis in the gallery from a long while back. What's going on? Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Glanum was excavated by Henri Rolland (1887-1970). It has an extensive literature and is described not as having been settled by the Greeks, but by the Celto-Ligurians under hellenistic influences from the Greek colony in Marseille. The whole pretext of PHG's article seems unscholarly and contradicts the main sources. The fact that he started to do this in a major article like Marseille was where he slipped up: if he'd kept to his walled garden of articles, it would have gone unnoticed. No reputable sources imply that the Greeks went inland to settle St Remy. There are detailed books on the excavations. The settlement in the second century BC used Celto-Ligurian units of measurement and incorporated various hellenistic elements. There are books devoted to the history of Marseille and Provence (in French): PHG has not used them. Even the Michelin guide of Provence would have been a better source. There is for example a book called "Pre-Roman Greeks in Gaul" by Charles Ebel. Why is it not in the references? Why was it not used to write the article? There's a related book by him here. When writing articles, isn't it standard practice to use the best possible sources, not what can be cobbled together online as spurious conjecture? I had to buy Stanley Sadie's Handel concertos myself before embarking on Handel concerti grossi Op.6, because (a) this is the principal existing reference (b) it was stolen from the Cambridge University library. Isn't this how wikipedia articles are normally written? Mathsci (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment There are multiple texts on the well-trodden theme of Celtic Gaul and its hellenization, particularly in Provence. For example Anthony King's UC Berkeley book on Roman Gaul has a long discussion on the Celts and the Greeks, on hellenization and the role of Massilia. The books of Charles Ebel are other examples where there is a prolonged account over many pages. This is valuable content which could be summarised in an article on pre-Roman Gaul. The key word is hellenization. This affected language, but not local Celtic deities, buildings, but not necessarily Celtic measurements, trade, etc, etc. The true picture is complex and described in detail in these sources. My main point is that almost all of this material is absent from the article at present. Hence my comments. Mathsci (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Mathsci! This is much better. I removed the Cambridge Ancient History-sourced sentence about Glanum which you seemed so troubled about in order to be agreable to you (normally you should have balanced the Cambridge statement with your own research). Now, anybody who is knowledgeable about the subject of the Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul is more than welcome to contribute and further expand the article! I'm not so knowledgeable about the subject myself (culture générale, a few books on Celtic numismatics, Boardman's book on the transmission of Hellenistic art, a few visits to relevant museums (Cabinet des Médailles, Museum of London, Metropolitan Museum of Art), Google Books online sources), so it is, of course only a start, and could be brought to a much higher level. My thanks to Angus McLellan for his kind and courageous intervention. Best regards to all. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Mongol Mamluks ???
You wrote: "In the early 1400s, Mongol relations with Europe again became friendly, this time with the Timurid dynasty, under Timur (Tamerlane), who was attempting to form an alliance against both the Mongol Mamluks and the Ottoman Empire" Mongol Mamluks?? This can't be right I'm afraid. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Relax, it's just a typo (too many two-syllable "M" words). I've fixed it. --Elonka 18:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- A bit careless in your sweeping rewrites? Glad to help anyway :-) Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh! Jerusalem! (1300)
Hi Elonka! Among your numerous edits to the Franco-Mongol alliance article, I took good note that you now write that the Mongols "probably" raided Jerusalem in 1300! . Before this seminal event, User:Srnec painstakingly studied the sources himself and strongly challenged your former interpretation, declaring that "the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" . After pursuing me so harshly for so long for writing about the Mongols and Jerusalem in 1300, this is quite a change isn’t it? I think a small word of apology for getting the facts wrong, and accusing me unduely, would be in order don’t you think? Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 17:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I really have no interest in getting into another long drawn out debate about this. Quite simply: There is a difference between the Mongols conquering Jerusalem, and a Mongol raid having briefly passed through Jerusalem. --Elonka 17:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're playing on words, to now make it sound like the Mongols just walked down Jerusalem's main street and left... This is still quite a mis-representation of facts. The Mongols "raid" actually resulted in an occupation indeed, even if short or "symbolic" (actually a few months) . The raid of 10,000 to 20,000 Mongols resulted in huge depredations reported in detail by Muslim sources , and validated by modern scholarship. Can't you recognize when you make a mistake and wrongfully accuse another contributor? Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry to have had to take this step, but because you refuse to let this go, are continuing to disrupt the GA nom, and are not listening to the advice of your mentor, I have filed an AE request to extend your topic ban, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning Per Honor et Gloria. --Elonka 23:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppets
Roddy Stauner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Randy Stauner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would appear to me to be clear sockpuppets of Dick Stauner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who you blocked, could you possibly block these two new ones? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Both blocked, thanks for letting me know. --Elonka 01:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. O Fenian (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)