User talk:Mohammad adil/Archive 2

Pakistan task force
Hi! I saw that you take interest in military history. I was wondering if you are interested to join this project: WikiProject Pakistani military history. It is a WikiProject designed and intended to focus on the improvement and mantainance of all Pakistani military and military-history related articles. If you are interested, please list yourself in the participants section.....we are in search of some willing people :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autsa (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mohammad adil rais-4khalid's signal to muslims cavalry.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mohammad adil rais-4khalid's signal to muslims cavalry.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Ja Ga  talk 22:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mohammad adil rais-3persian counter attack.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mohammad adil rais-3persian counter attack.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Ja Ga  talk 22:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mohammad adil rais-2muslims attack.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mohammad adil rais-2muslims attack.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Ja Ga  talk 22:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mohammad adil rais-1night before battle.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mohammad adil rais-1night before battle.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Ja Ga  talk 22:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mohammad adil rais-phase2.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mohammad adil rais-phase2.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Ja Ga  talk 22:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mohammad adil rais-phase3.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mohammad adil rais-phase3.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Ja Ga  talk 22:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mohammad adil rais-phase4.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mohammad adil rais-phase4.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Ja Ga  talk 22:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Three revert rule
Every user in an edit war can three times revert the article, afterwards I can call the admins to act against an disturbing editor. I hope you are aware of that. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 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) 17:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

peer review
I requested a peer review on Battle of Yarmouk to see what could be improved. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 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) 04:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Battle of al-Qādisiyyah
Hello. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Battle of al-Qādisiyyah, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to include substantial text copied from and therefore a copyright violation. This material seems to have been added by you with this edit. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Battle of al-Qādisiyyah and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Battle of al-Qādisiyyah with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Battle of al-Qādisiyyah.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Battle of al-Qādisiyyah saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Yarmouk
I like the new maps, however, the important camp sites of the respective armies are missing. Please add them. How did you create these maps? I'm curious. The Military History Project is searching competent editors who can teach others to make maps. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Ridda wars need better coverage with battle plans and article improvement. However, outside the Muslim world there are also many articles requiring maps. I'm working on the Second Punic War. There are maps needed for the battle of the Metaurus(one of the most decisive battles according to some historians), a corrected version of the battle of Cannae because the center of the Carthaginian line wasn't composed of cavalry and the Roman cavalry is totally missing. The battle of Zama should be redrawn in different colors and with a clear wedge formation for the third line of Hannibal's army. The decisive battle of Ilipa with the Romans using a wedge with the Iberians in the center against the Carthaginian straight line with the African troops in the center and the mercenaries on the wings ended all Punic ambitions to hold Iberia and is thus a major turning point.
 * You could have more impact with your work if you were teaching others to make maps themselves. For this purpose you coul make an offer in the Logistics departement of the Military History Project to help other editors on creating battle maps. There's already a similar offer to help with graphics in general. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's very kind of you to make these maps. You might add the battle of Artemisium (currently under GA review) where the Greek navy formed a circle and then attacked out of this secure formation. Still, some kind of guide for others to make as good maps would be very helpful. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Arrangment-mohammad adil rais.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Arrangment-mohammad adil rais.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Ja Ga  talk 22:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:JSI Staff Group Photo-160209.pdf
Thanks for uploading File:JSI Staff Group Photo-160209.pdf. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

battle of Cannae
First of all, it's tradition to make the Romans red and the Carthaginians blue. Secondly, Livy writes that Hannibal was retreating with the center while his Gallic cavalry struggled with the Romans on confined grounds and was just able to cut them to pieces by dismounting and thus increasing their numbers on the frontline. You have well done showing the Gauls and Iberians in a deeper formation, but Hannibal in the center must be far more V shaped towards the enemy. that allows the trick to make the Carthaginian light armed that protect against the superior numbers of Roman light armed to retreat to the wings(the Roman light armed retreat backwards through their own formation). Also, it is written that the African infantry marched forward to encircle and then turned in right angle (presumably the started with a very deep and narrow formation in the original frontline). The ensuing fighting broke the Roman movement forward on the wings, it presumably took place when both lines were straight (in this moment you achieve the maximum crowdedness). This fits neatly with the description that the Carthaginian battle line was longer than the Roman, thus you have the Lybians extending beyond the deep Roman formation. You could add as an additional feature alternate Hannibal's center between dense formations of Iberians and loose formations of Gauls(that would make it excellent)

Zama is more complicated. There are three Carthaginian battle lines and a struggle for outflanking in the final phase that Hannibal's veterans almost won before the Roman and Numidian cavalry reappeared. Under no circumstances is this an infantry encirclement like Cannae. We can't be sure whether the encircling cavalry was supported by infantry, the Numdians presumably were, because it's described as their way of fighting in mixed formations. The trick to this battle is that you have a very dense Carthaginian formation of three lines in the center and a very thin on the wings. The wings are attacked in the front, the rear and the sides and collapse, afterwards you have a perfect encirclement, however, we lack sources for what exactly happened afterwards. So, we have to break off with the successful intervention of cavalry. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I went through Gregory Daly, Cannae. The experience of battle in the Second Punic War from 2002. I can send you a copy of what he writes about the Carthaginian formation, just give me an email adress. Principally, they used an arc that was more than 28,5(Daly writes 25, but I calculated with his width) men deep in the center and less on the wings(in Spain Hasdrubal tried also an encirclement and the Romans broke through the center, despatching both wings afterwards). The Roman formation was about 65 ranks deep(Daly writes 50, but that doesn't fit with his width). The African infantry was probably numbering 5000 on each wing (leaving Hannibal with about 2000 in the center that should be marked as special) in columns 125 men deep and 40 men wide(the Roman battleline was about 840 men wide). When moving forwards and then turning right, they stood 125 men wide and 40 men deep, 2/3 of the depth of the Roman formation, however that's a calculation for the Romans having space between their units, without they would stand twice as deep, a question of belief. While it certainly makes sense that the Carthaginians didn't extend their battleline beyond that of the Romans it must have been a few men longer to provide cover for the Africans to move without much friction. The Roman number is best highlighted with two deep lines because they used only hastati and principes, 54000 men against 24000(8000 Iberians, 2000 Africans with Hannibal and 14000 Gauls) in the Carthaginian center and 5000 on each wing. Providing even information for the infantry skirmish were 16000 velites stood against 8000 slingers and spearmen would help to render the whole picture of the battle. it is assumed that the Carthaginian light armed helped on all sides with the encirclement. An extra bonus would be the wind blowing dust into the eyes of the Romans. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some errors. I'll send you a draft. It's an excellent idea to break things up into small units and it' sourceable how many there were. I'll do some calculations. Another improvement would be to use different shades of blue to highlight the Africans, Iberians and Gauls who all had different equipment and fighting styles. Naturally, we could do the same for the Romans and point out the difference between Roman and Allied troops. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Military campaigns under Caliph Uthman
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Military campaigns under Caliph Uthman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unneeded copy-and-paste of part of Caliph Uthman with no attempt to properly format it

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ironholds (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Abu Bakr (radhi Allah anhu) article
Hi, are you Sunni?

Ah sorry about the sub heading, I didn't see it! Anyway, the info box for all Caliphs (radhi Allah anhum) should only have the map about extent of the Caliphate, the other things should be deleted because it can be merged into the article. Malik Al Assad (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

al-Hamd al-Illahi Rabbil 'Alameen you are Sunni

anyways, so you agree about everything I say right? if so I feel I am better at the editing part because it seems I know more about the genealogy stuff, you can add the map of the extent the Khilafa of 'Umar (radhi Allah anhu). Malik Al Assad (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mohammad Adil, excellent work on your articles, I am very impressed. Waiting to see the extent of your efforts in improving the Umar page as well.--Sampharo (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

RE:Battle of Yarmouk
Thank you for contacting me. The Sunni and Shi'a schism is important here, as it was the cause of many revolts and battles within Islamic history, its religious aspect was mainly solidified during the time of Muhammad al-Baqir. This single line is important is showing the dissension that plagued Abu Bakr's reign. I won't revert, I'll get a third party decision, link you to it, and then act upon it. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  21:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of al-Qādisiyyah
I've noticed some problems about sources and possible original reserach on this article, which I discuss on its talk page aTalk:Battle of al-Qādisiyyah, I'd like your thoughts. Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Abbasid Caliphate
Hi, I have now corrected the map in question which I added earlier after your enquiry. Please also say if there are anything more incorrect (with that or any other maps that I have made) and I will eventually correct that too, should there be anything. Take care, -GabaG (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

welcome
you are welcome Oniongas (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

you are welcome
You are wel come in the team of Chiltan Adventurers, for details please contact, Malik Abdul Rahim Baabai our Chairman, Thanks--Ali Mohammad Khilji (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Arab invasion of Egypt
Hello, I replied to you on the article's talk page. As I mentioned there, I tried my best to incorporate your earlier changes into the changes I make. As you can see from my edits, ALL my statements are referenced from history books. I spend a lot of time translating text from different languages, including first hand resources from Arabic, Coptic and Greek. This is what an encyclopedia means (to address your earlier objection). So please refrain from deleting my edits until we discuss them on the talk page, and reach a consensus. Best regards. --Lanternix (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking
Adding a template to a user page will not actually block them. To block a user you have to be an administrator. I have removed the notice from their talk page. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see if this will help, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 20:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Umar
I don't think there is much point in unlocking the article as the edit war will just continue. I would suggest that trying to get some more comments from editors that don't have an interest in the subject would be a good idea. You might want to try asking at WikiProject Biography or one of the other projects listed at the top of Talk:Umar. What is needed are people who would have access to sources and can evaluate them. Unfortunately because of where I live there are no sources available here, so it's hard to evaluate the claims. I will also make a post on the Umar talk page. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:Caliph Umar
I've been trying to help, but I wish not to force myself on the article until the Sunni editors are completely ready. I suggest religious beliefs are confined to respective sections and to a single sentence in the opening. Umar was a political figure on a historical level and the single most successful conqueror in human history; that is what needs to be focused on in this article. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  05:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an example of this should be Shah Ismail. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  05:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As the issues come up with them, we will deal with them. Yes, I can insha'Allah write the Shi'a view of Umar section. One issue is that Ismailiyya and Zaidiyya do not view him as a bad man, only the Twelvers do. It might make more sense to simply have a Twelver section on him than both a Sunni and Shi'a section. All other Muslims aside from the Twelvers have a positive view of him, though it admittedly differs a bit; for example, I believe contemporary Zaidiyyah viewed he sinned by stealing the caliphate but was a just ruler nonetheless. -- ♥ pashtun ismailiyya  05:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

On Phone
Dear Adil, on the cell you had contacted Mr. Durrani for Hanna Lake, was replied but the cell was attended by someone else, and he said wrong number, please confirm your mob number to Mr. Durrani, Thanks,--Ali Mohammad Khilji (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Help in Editing
Can you help me please in editing family tree of the Mahmud Shah Durrani, Thanks,--Ali Mohammad Khilji (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is wikiIslam?
Hi Mohamed,

I know you are busy but you are one of the most active editors here about Islam. There is a "bash" Islam section of Mediawiki and is focusing on making up complete nonsense with impunity. Apparently however it is using the Mediawiki form and is therefore establishing itself as a legitimate part of wikipedia. What is this and how can this be allowed?!

I am sending to you hoping you know something to be done, it is a total disgrace and my wife went to it and thought the information was accurate and got very upset and confused until I clarified. It uses the wiki naming methodology and seems to be part of the foundation, which is outrageous. Hope you can do something. The page is at http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Main_Page

--Sampharo (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Guard
mutaharrik tulaiha could not have been the original name because it is not even grammatically correct. First, in Arabic, the noun comes before the adjective, unlike here. Second, the adjective follows the noun in gender, which it does not here. Third, Guard is not the word for "tulaiha". Could you give one source that lists this name in *arabic*? going through history and discussion I notice that somebody removed it already. Why do you insist? can you give the source? thanks.

I am not trying to be destructive here, but translations have to be correct... --Djihed (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you let me know the page number? I downloaded the book and did some searching without success. I doubt that it was listed as the Arabic source term in the book, and if it was then it ought to be incorrect.
 * It's like saying the name is "Guard Mobile" or some such grammatically incorrect name. It cannot be. --Djihed (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

First Battle of Dongola
Hi. Thnx for contacting me. I'm a military history enthusiast myself and am happy to meet someone who shares that interest. I do have some questions about your edits.


 * 1) I added your source (a very good one I might add) in the sources section. Please put the page number for your citations next to the facts they support. If I had the book you cited, I'd put them myself. I even looked on googlebooks but had no luck. If you own the book, please put the page numbers for your references that way it is harder for I or anyone else to contests them. Without such info, the statements become heresay. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on most stuff, cuz I think you are a serious researcher. Just use the formating I used for page citations. it's pretty simple and less time consuming than writing the whole source everytime.


 * 1) I disagree with phrasing this as a series of skirmishes. All my sources state that there was one event that occurred in 642 and not several. I'm going to put back the original wording in the intro based on this.


 * 1) All of my sources agree a pitched battle was fought.


 * 1) Where did you get the info for 250 wounded on the Rashidun side? My quote has it at 150. I put back the original 150 with a reference citation. Feel free to replace with your own when you have a page to reference it with. My number comes from the eye-witness (lol) of the battle.


 * 1) Thanks for catching my mistake about the commander for the Rashidun forces. I looked at my source again and it does mention his name as the leader of the cavalry force.


 * 1) I'm opting to remove the section that states

"It is widely believed that these were not whole scale invasions but were Preemptive attacks. A whole scale invasion would required permission of Caliph Umar at Madinah."

First off, who "widely believes" this. You have to say who or at least reference some academic sources. Second, I strongly this was not a whole scale or major invasion due to the numbers allocated (20,000 horsemen). Also, if the Calliphate would have been successful, they would have stayed. This does not appear to be a simple raid. When the Muslim forces succeeded in North Africa, they stayed and added the land to the dar el-islam. Once your part of it, you are always part of it. That seems like an invasion to me. I understand the Caliph's permission was required for a "Full-scale invasion" utilizing more resources (manpower, equipment, etc.). But this definately was an invasion. It just happens to be an invasion that was a failure.


 * 1) I'm putting back the 20,000 horsemen figure since it is reputably sourced. No reason to take it out, and it adds data to the article.


 * 1) I do not agree with the premise that the Nubians avoided a pitched battle at the First Battle of Dongola. The quote you put in sounds like the commander was just making an excuse for a defeat. The earlier quote puts it quite plainly that the Nubians did come out and fight. I haven't run across any info that mentions guerilla tactics used by the Nubians in this instance. I'm going to change that portion, until it can be properly referenced (with page number). I do think it is important to include both viewpoints tho and any letters from the commander to his superiors should definately be included.


 * 1) After some searching I found this on googlebooks (http://books.google.com/books?id=bS-A6R8K818C&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=Nubians+avoided+pitched+battle,+and+in+the+guerilla+tactics+that+they+followed,+the+Muslims+are+the+sufferers&source=bl&ots=60LPMsZyem&sig=yueMpUKmnyTf8WjIrg6QQGqHH6Q&hl=en&ei=FT5BSof8IoqMtge31PidCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4). It seems to back up most of your claims, but is very contradictory. On one hand it states that there were no pitched battles, then goes on to say that in one instance, Uqba came upon a conentrations of Nubians who gave battle and bested his forces. Doesn't that sound like a pitched battle? I'm debating using this for your source, but i'm not sure about the reputability of its pubisher. Your original source was Oxford which is beyond repute.

Holla back and I hope not to offend with my edits. I really appreciate you communicating with my.

Scott Free (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

First Battle of Dongola...2.0
Ok. Please check out the page now and tell me what you think. I think I've struck a good balance between our mutual content. Scott Free (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Waite for you
we waited for you but you were absent, any how see you next time,--Ali Mohammad Khilji (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing request
I need your assistance in editing for wiki standered the the family tree of the article Mahmud Shah Durrani thanks.--Ali Mohammad Khilji (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Graph-4 Height incrementation.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Graph-4 Height incrementation.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree File:Graph-3 Average height.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Graph-3 Average height.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rai • me 20:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Graph-1 By region.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Graph-1 By region.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rai • me 20:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Graph-2 By function.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Graph-2 By function.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rai • me 20:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Number
Dear Adil, from the mobile you called Mr. Durrani, he responded you again to invites you but on the number there was someone else, please contact Mr. Durrani.--Ali Mohammad Khilji (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

drawing battle maps
Hi Mohammad, could you write a short introduction for me how you draw battlemaps. We would like to include it in the academy for others to learn how to do this also. Thanks a lot. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you send me a list of useful tutorials on youtube and how you start a map? Do you draw a rough plan first? Where do you research for details and how? Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I m currentlz on an excavation and don t have much time. Will try in 4 weeks. Greetings Wandalstouring

Your RFA
You created your RFA on 6 September but never completed the process. If you wish for this to happen, you need to re-initiate the process by changing the end-time to a week from now and then transclude it to WP:RFA. -MBK004 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Before you transclude, you might like to take the opportunity to flesh out your nomination statement a little. People will be interested in hearing how you plan to use the tools, for example, and about any experience you have in admin-related areas (nominating articles for WP:CSD in the obvious one, though there are plenty of others listed here.  Roger Davies  talk 04:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your RfA has been closed by a bureaucrat per WP:NOTNOW. You shouldn't let this discourage you if you're still interested in being an admin - you've been given some good advice by the commenters there, and I can only echo what they've said. You definitely might find admin coaching useful (see WP:ADCO). I'd also like to congratulate you on your battle maps, they really are excellent and very informative. I hope you don't mind a few minor suggestions for the future. First, if your maps end up in articles that get assessed for featured status, good status, or something like milhist A-Class, you'll need to provide sources for where you got the information from (see the Source section on File:Charnwood.svg for an example). Second, while including a key is helpful, it can prevent the map being used in non-English language Wikipedias. It can sometimes be best to leave off the key and include the information in the image caption instead (though this isn't always as easy to do!). Thank you for your fine work, and all the best with your editing! EyeSerene talk 08:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome :) What do you use for making your maps? EyeSerene talk 17:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I use Inkscape too. Despite the occasional crashes (for me at least!), I think it's excellent. It took me a while to find out how to get text to render properly (I wasn't converting it to a path), so I saved my first maps as pngs as well. I've managed to get everything working in svg format now though... one of these days when I have the time, I'll go back and redo my old png maps as svgs. EyeSerene talk 07:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Salam alaikum
...and thanks for welcoming me back on Wiki :) I was very busy for a long time, but now am a little more free. I want to edit several articles of yours for grammar and style, since I am also interested in early Islamic military history and rulers. Unflavoured (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Checking for style and grammar
I checked your article for style and grammar but there is a way by which you can avoid a lot of mistakes in the future. Write an article in Word or in Openoffice writer. Then check the grammar and style in one of these programs before you place it on Wikipedia. (by the way: Openoffice writer is free of charge). Looking forward to read the new stuff you will put on Wikipedia. Regards, Wereldburger758 (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yarmouk
I will try and copy edit as much of this as possible. I noticed however, that the article does not follow a proper timeline: sometimes events which occur after the battle are referred to in the early part of the articles, and so on. Some of the information is also repeated. Anyway, I will do a full copy-edit first, then see about other specifics.

Thanks for the heads-up. I will try and do Qaddisyah also after I finish Khalid ibn Al-Walid. Unflavoured (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I have noted your message and had reply it on my talk page, many thanks for cotecting me,--Ali Mohammad Khilji (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Jerusalem
Hi Mohammad, can you please explain on the talk page what you think is wrong with the article? It is not helpful to say "pathetic" without explaining why. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

request for information
I have problems with a part of the article "Siege of Damascus (634)". This is the text:" Byzantine reinforcement

Emperor Heraclius was at Antioch during this siege. On September 9, 634 Emperor Heraclius sent a reinforcement of 12,000 men to Damascus, which initially defeated the Muslim detachment but was later defeated and driven away at the Battle of Saniyyat-ul-Uqab about 20 miles (32 km) north of Damascus, by troops under Khalid's command. The Muslim forces laying siege to the city had been weakened by 9,000 men with the departure of first Raafe's detachment and then the reinforcement of the Mobile Guard under Khalid ibn Walid. If the Byzantine army attacked in strength against any Muslim corps, there would be a serious danger of their breaking through. Understanding the danger of the situation Khalid hurried to Damascus and did not pursue the routed Byzantine troops."

and in particular: "with the departure of first Raafe's detachment and then the reinforcement of the Mobile Guard under Khalid ibn Walid."

Where did the reinforcement of the Mobile Guard under Khalid ibn Walid go to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wereldburger758 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Damascus (634)
I have reviewed the entire text of this article and corrected some mistakes. Could you check the links? After that we can submit this article to the different wikiprojects found on the discussion page of the article. The article has gone up on the quality scales of the different wikiprojects. Regards Wereldburger758 (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Maraj-al-Debaj
Mohammad adil, have a look at the article Battle of Maraj-al-Debaj. I completely edited it. Btw, thanks for the stars. Wereldburger758 (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

request for information
This sentence in the article Muslim conquest of Syria is unclear to me:" Thus the Muslim army moved to Fahl. Khalid commanded the advance guard and reached Fahl first and found the plain being flooded by Byzantines by blocking the River Jordan."

What is meant? Did Khalid block the passage over the river Jordan so that refugees could not escape? What is exactly meant by this sentence?

Wereldburger758 (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review requests
The rules of Peer Review limit editors to one review per day (as stated on the WP:PR page. You obviously weren't aware of this when you nominated three articles for review on 4 December. Please bear this rule in mind for future requests. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Qadisiyah-mohammad adil.PNG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Qadisiyah-mohammad adil.PNG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Another request for information
This time it concerns a quote in the article Muslim conquest of Syria:" Farewell, a long farewell to Syria, my fair province. Thou art an infidel's (enemy's) now."

Peace be with you, O' Syria - what a beautiful land you will be for the enemy hands

The first line isn't correct English. And does the second line belong to the first line, that is, did Heraclius say these two lines one after the other? Wereldburger758 (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories
I've removed the categories from your user subpages as the cats list your subpage in the cat list feel free to readd the categories when you move your articles to the mainspace-- NotedGrant  Talk  15:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Definite article and indefinite article
Hello Mohammed,

I will copy edit the article Siege of Damascus. But I would like you to pay attention to the first two paragraphs of the article. So from the beginning up to the list of the gates. In these lines I miss 12 definite articles (i.e. "the") and two indefinite articles (i.e. "a"). You see, in the English language, you use more articles more often than not.

I point this out to you, so that you might learn from it. All in good faith. Regards. Wereldburger758 (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have done the copy edit of "Siege of Damascus (634)". I will have a second look at it somewhat later. Wereldburger758 (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

language section
The language section of the article Muslim conquest of Persia is done. Wereldburger758 (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Two minor mistakes
In the file: Mohammad adil-Muslim invasion of Syria-4.PNG, there are two minor mistakes. "Roman Claimed, not controled" should be "Roman claimed, not controlled". Wereldburger758 (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Battle of Yarmouk as a Good article
Salam Alaykum. I suggest nominating this article here. Although I wasn't active in this year but you can achieve GA criteria.-- Seyyed(t-c) 19:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

broken ref
In the article "Siege of Damascus (634)" there is a broken reference:

"Capture of the city

Khalid argued that he had conquered the city by force but Abu Ubaidah on the other hand told him about the peace agreement made between him and Thomas. "

Can you fix it? Greetings, Wereldburger758 (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Battle of Yarmouk/636 C.E. from THE GREAT ARAB CONQUEST
Mr. Mohammad, Please find the pages to the Second Battle of Yarmouk. Put cursor in left hand corner of page to zoom in or zoom out to read. If you need any more information from General Glubb's 1963 book, feel free to ask. For example the First Battle of the Yarmouk. The guest password for this album is yarmouk. Finally, thank you for your kind offer to attempt to your best to make The Battle of Yarmouk (ie the final battle) balanced with all the historians opinions and objections on this subject. --Jackehammond (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

.
 * Dear Mr. Mohammad, I will fully agree that the Battle of Yarmouk is as the first paragraph states "The Battle of Yarmouk is regarded as one of the most decisive battles in military history ..." In my opinion it is one of the most three decisive battles in Islamic military history. What would you consider to be top three.  My list would be the Battle of Yarmouk that secured Muslim conquest outside of the Arabian peninsula and secured the territories south of the Taurus Mountains and North Africa, the Battle of Ain Jalut which stopped the Mongol conquest of both the Muslim and Christian world, and Siege of Malta (1565) which actually was the battle that spelled the beginning of the end of Ottoman conquest and therefore the Muslim military tide in history.  Which three battles in your opinion are the most important to the Muslim world --Jackehammond (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

.

.

copy-edit of Battle of Yarmouk
I have done some work on the article Battle of Yarmouk but it isn't enough. There is more to be done. See for example the sections day 1 till 6. And I am terrrible short on time lately. Wereldburger758 (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

indentation and sign your name
I thihnk what warrior4321 is talking about is it makes it easier to read you posts if you also indent your signature so it follows after your text. Or place it imidiatly after the last line (but on the same line) as your post.Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Message for you at Jackehammond Talk
Mohammad, I have a reply for you at my Talk page. --Jackehammond (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Asal Uttar
Hey,

You are mixing up Battle of Chawinda with Battle of Asal Uttar. The page 35 of The M47 and M48 Patton tanks by Steve Zaloga and Jim Laurier mentions that India made a claim that Pakistan lost 67 tanks during the battle of Chawinda.

Cheers, --Nosedown (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 19:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)