Hello, Mohammad adil/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ITAQALLAH13:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have reverted you since the additions were not neutral and were not sourced. Please feel welcomed to re-add them in a neutral maner with sources. Peace. --Striver13:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to politely ask that you not create micro-articles. Please try to include more information. For instance, tell when the battle took place. DS16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest, was the battle in BC or AD? This needs to be put onto the page to help other people wondering as well as me. -- Casmith 78912:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Mosque Khalid ibn al-Walid ,tombstone of khalid is in this mosque..JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Mosque Khalid ibn al-Walid ,tombstone of khalid is in this mosque..JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Khalid's Signal to Muslim cavalry.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Khalid's Signal to Muslim cavalry.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
H again. In cleaning up the traces left by your autobiographical article I noticed that you've been signing your posts on talk pages with [[Mohmmad adil]]. While signing your posts is a good thing, you might not be aware of the easy way to do it. Simply place ~~~~ at the end of the post to gt your username as a link, with the time and the date added automatically.
Thanks for uploading Image:Mohammad Adil Rais.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Muslims_Attack.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Muslims_Attack.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Muslims_cavalry_and_infantry_in_action.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).For further info see the talk page guidelines. Thank you.
(Gnevin17:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Mohammad_adil_rais-muslims_cavalry_at_yermuk.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Ravine_of_Waddi-ur-Riqqad-mohammad_adil_rais-.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Please stop tagging your uploads with conflicting and erroneous licenses. Also please provide the source of the image (typically a URL). I suggest you read WP:IMAGE and WP:TAG before uploading anything else. ccwaters14:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want help with? --ais523 10:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
(Context: the request was for help with image descriptions and licensing tags on selfmade images) If you make a picture yourself (by drawing it or photographing it), you have to release it under a free use licence so that Wikipedia can use it. The licences Wikipedia permits all allow unrestricted distribution of the image (so the image can even be used for commercial purposes), and the ability to make derivative works (i.e. you must allow anyone to modify your images and use the new version). You can require that you are credited for your work, and that people don't relicence the work under a more restrictive licence (this is the Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike licence); Wikipedia also allows the GNU Free Documentation Licence, the same licence under which its text is distributed, which imposes a few extra conditions; and public domain, which places no restrictions at all on the future use of the image (not even crediting the author). Once you've decided on the licence, choose one of the 'self-made' options from the drop-down menu under 'licence'. As for the image summary, that's much easier; just write a short description of what the image is of, and the fact that you made it yourself. Hope that helps; feel free to put {{helpme}} back up if you have any more questions. --ais523 10:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Sword_of_Umar_ibn_al-Khittab-mohammad_adil_rais.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Sword_of_Umar_ibn_al-Khittab-mohammad_adil_rais.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Satelite-view_of_tameer-i-nau_college_mohammad_adil_rais.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Mosque Khalid ibn al-Walid by mohammad adil rais.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot12:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned fair use image (Image:1Day-1-arrangment-mohammad adil rais.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:1Day-1-arrangment-mohammad adil rais.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot13:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of courtesy I am advising you that I have placed a {{Copyvio}} notice on the above article, as the author appears to comment that he wrote it
Hi. When you uploaded Image:Grave_of_Usman(r.a)-mohammad_adil_rais.JPG, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image, and that, just as with all of your text contributions, you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.
This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.
If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.
If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week.
An image that you uploaded, Image:The ford-zoom-mohammad adil rais-.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. VegitaU03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright problems with Image:Yermuk plane and the battle field-mohammad adil rais.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Muslims Attack.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot10:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Muslims cavalry and infantry in action.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Muslims cavalry and infantry in action.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot10:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you uploaded Image:Muslims Attack.JPG, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.
This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.
If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.
If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.
Hi. When you uploaded Image:Muslims cavalry and infantry in action.JPG, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.
This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.
If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.
If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.
Dear brother, I am impress after seeing your work and sandboxes. I hope you will continue doing this good work. Please let me know if you need my help. Wassalam. -- A. L. M.14:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen that you are working on Shabah Umar in your sandbox. That article needs help and given the his personality impact on Muslims we should improve it. I hope that you will make a big different there sometime soon. Wassalam. --- A. L. M.11:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I usually edit wikipedia from University when I am studying. Hence I am very slow in good edits. Please contact User:Itaqallah and User:Aminz. They are very productive editors. They could help. I will drop and fix things, add references, fix spelling etc whenever possible. I will also try to issue few books from library to help you but after two weeks. It is because I have a deadline. Wassalam --- A. L. M.11:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Carom22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read over (and corrected) alot of your work when editing the Khalid Bin Walid article. Thank you for a good job. If there is any way you need help when writing (Grammar, sentence structure) please post on my user-page. I would also like to help out in any Islamic-related project you are working on. Unflavoured05:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at your 'sandbox6'. Would you like me to go through it, one paragraph at a time ? I am usually online for about one hour a day, so maybe i can go through the entire article in a couple of weeks.Unflavoured06:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salam. I have gone through your Uthman article, all the way up to and including the Prophet's final years. Please see my changes and tell if this is ok. I had to join many sentences together, since they were very short. Also, the link to farewell hajj may not work, so you should see to that. What are you working on now ?! Unflavoured05:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salam, thanks for responding on my page. You added alot of content to Uthman's article, but I will be a little busy soon, so I will work on it slowly. I am sorry that I cannot help in adding new information, but I think you are already good at that, but I can help and correct all grammar/language. It is nice to work with you. By the way, you may wanna look at this: MBT 2000. Very nice. Unflavoured03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one more thing, it is easier if we discuss changes on the sandbox discussion page. Go to your userbox6/discussion, I wrote a few comments there. Thanks. Unflavoured03:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salam, I am practically done with Caliph Uthman article. I will start correcting your userbox7. I feel like i am stalking you, heh heh. Unflavoured02:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salam, I read your message recently. I think you should call the article: The Rashidun Empire, since Islamic Empire could mean the era after or before the one you want to write about. The current article: Rashidun, is more about the Caliphs, and not the empire, so I don't think you should merge the two together. Unflavoured 06:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: You wrote three new articles, and I will inshalla look through each one. Now I am correcting Battle of Chains. Unflavoured06:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The June 2007 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.
I understand that naturaly you are to have an eastern bias and I a western bias, but many of these battles, many of which were significantly contributed by you, appear to be very poorly made and uncyclopedic - for example, use of the word "enemy" and the following words:
"joyous christian festival turned into a violent battle" was the first sentence of a paragraph. This is poorly explained.
These were probably not made by you -
I am informing you this so that ou are aware that I am watching and will be editting these articles with sources not influenced by either the Arabs or the Greeks so that they can be reliable.
I am not suggetsing that you did this or giving any hostile message. I merely wish to inform you the poor state of these articles given that you appear to have an interest in this area.
I admire your honor and your speedy response. Inshalla, that means God willing, right? Take your time, I too am busy. Hope to see you around, Tourskin05:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mohammad adil. I found your article on Abdullah ibn Aamir and did some copy editing. If you'd like, please go back through it and make sure I didn't change anything factual. I enjoyed reading it; it's an excellent history. Paxsimius14:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I read over the Legacy section again and I see where I had misunderstood what was written. It should be clear and correct now. I also fixed a couple of grammar issues that are rather subtle in English but make a big difference in readability. I can see that you are trying hard at your English, and I'm not complaining; you write much better English than I do Urdu. Paxsimius22:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mohammad adil. You are off to such a great start on the article Abdullah ibn Aamir that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee(Talk)14:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The boy previously known as a vandal has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
Greetings. Sorry I missed, your message!! It came at the same time with another so I didn't know that you had sent one.
About your articles ; they are quite good. It is quite neutral and enjoyable to read, but I have an interest in ancient and medieval warfare so!
What they need know is for some spelling and grammar to be improved. Then after that we an maintain the neutrality. Also, we should get some references for the number of troops provided. Remember that casualties on both sides were low; it is true that at Yarmuk, a crushing defeat was inflicted on the Byantines, and it was a Heroic Muslim/Arab victory. But after that the Romans had few troops remaining in Syria, as they concentrated on keeping Egypt.
I will do my best to improve the spelling and grammar. I greatly appreciate you informing me, I understand that you don't have to tell me but you did so I grateful for this. And keep up the good work!!
Tourskin has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
i saw your comment on al-qadisiyyah. Muhammad himself ordered the first military expeditions outside the arabian peninsula. khalid ibn al-walid led the initial forces directed against the sasanian empire. the history of Tabari would be the best place for you to start, if you would like to find out more on this. if you would prefer academic sources, i would recommend Fred Donner's book on the conquest.
good luck! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgl (talk • contribs) 09:15, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
Hi, no-ones actually moved the article, they have just set up a redirect from Rashidun Caliphate to Rashidun. It would be fine to remove the redirection link in Rashidun Caliphate and add a disambiguation link to the top of your new article linking to Rashidun. Hope this helps! Andyreply18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The August 2007 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.
Please see my comments in regards to Byzantine-Arab Wars on the talk page. The Persian war ended in 628 AD. The Arab war began in 633 AD. Trust me, 6 years is not enough to reorganize.
The September 2007 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.
The October 2007 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.
The November 2007 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 BrownBot02:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I will allow the numbers for the time being. I have no other sources to suggest what the Byzantines had in each battle, although I showed you a source saying that the Byzantines had around 150,000 soldiers maximum for all battles. Thank you again for your response,
The December 2007 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, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You used to have a userbox expressing support for Hezbollah, a group that is considered to be a terrorist organisation in many countries. I have removed the userbox because the consensus of editors indicates that it is unnecessarily divisive and inflammatory, and because it was based on the template {{User Hezbollah}} that has been repeatedly deleted for this reason. Such boxes are not allowed according to our rules about inappropriate user page content, and in accordance with Wikipedia not being a battleground. Please do not re-add this userbox, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia or your user page may be protected. For further information, please see the discussion at WP:ANI#Hezbollah userbox. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sir! My name is Fauzul from Indonesia. I am satisfied with your job, doing stories and maps about Khalid bin Walid. Great job! Thank you very much. May Allah bless you.
Assalamu'alaikum wr. wb.
Fauzul
<fauzul_muhammad@yahoo.com>
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 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) 00:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
Wualikumasalam, yes I remember you, good friend! Thank you for your response. I do have some books, which you may find of interest that tell the story from a western point of view. Unfortunatelty, they do not speak of this conflict much, because as you know, the defeated do not glorify such history. However, the following books can help you out a little:
Konstam, Angus (2004). The Crusades. London: Mercury Books. pp. p. 40. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
Norwich, John Julius (1997). A Short History of Byzantium. New York: Vintage Books. pp. p. 298. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
Grant, R.G. (2005). Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley. pp. p. This book has numbers for the Battle of Yarmouk
Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. New York: Oxford UP. pp. p. 265. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)This book states that the Byzantines had about 150,000 men that they could raise and then it fell to 80,000 after the Arab victories, because the Byzantines brought more of their men into the army.
Unfortunately, I do not have electronic versions of these. Take care,
I have been reelected coordinator and brought up the old discussion about expanding Muslim military history to the present day. This has been an issue raised by Muslim editors when the task force was founded. It would be great if you could help expanding the articles that present what makes Islams treatment of war effect especially the Muslim warfare. I have been reading a bit on the topic and can help you with advice, but feel myself not confident enough with my limited knowledge. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 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) 08:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) All peoples joined the Roman/Byzantine army, and all peoples in the Empire were citizens so there may have been Copt soldiers. The Byzantines had a practice of placing foreign soldiers away from their countries so that they would not rebel. That is why there may or may not have been Copt soldiers in Egypt. Other peoples who could have served include Assyrians, although they were probably few.
2) The Byzantine Empire did win the last war against Persia. However, the reality is that the war was very damaging. It almost ended in defeat, see Siege of Constantinople (626). Note that Armenia, Egypt, Palestine and parts of Anatolia (Turkey) remained in Persian hands even whilst Byzantine armies were at the Capital of Ctesiphon. The Persians were forced to accept treaties to surrender these lands. The war had cost Byzantium alot of money, had destroyed her infrastructure (roads, weapons factories, governmental offices) and many of the provinces such as Egypt were poorly controlled, as they had only recently been taken back. Even so, Byzantium had the ability to raise 300 - 100,000 men, but the government was too inefficient and probably raised half as much, more like 150,000 men. Of those, around 50,000 survived to fight again.
3) Armpour: A very difficult thing to understand. Roman armou has always been changing. In the 5th century, plate armour became less available and instead cheap mail armour was favored. As time progressed, the Byzantine army may have become less standardized as it incoporated a whole lot of peoples into her armies. No doubt there was some plate armour, but most of it may have been mail armour.
Don't forget though that the Arabs won some great victories against Persia, and there armour may have been used too. Like all nations, plate armour was available but not so much with the common soldiers.
I leave it to you; you have demonstrated great honor in attempting to find a neutral solution. For the Battle fo Yarmouk, it is said that the Byzantines had 80,000 soldiers against the Arab's 30,000. 30,000 Arab victors can control Palestine far better than 7,500. The Byzantines lost many men there, 70,000. Since I am on wikibreak, I can't help too much.
1-} why they say byzantine empire was weaken by long byzantine-persian wars, although it was finally byzantine who came out victorious from this long war when heraculas conquered back what they lost a decade ago ? i mean an empire fought back whn it is in it form to fight.
The Byzantine empire also suffered from frequent plagues and had to suppress some of its population. From archaeological evidence it is known that the men in the military had far better living conditions than the normal inhabitants who had to bear the burden of the constant wars and were thus very dissatisfied. Especially, the wars didn't bring much booty compared to their costs.
2-) beside, franks, salvs, armenians, christian arabs people of which which ethnicity were there in byzantine army in 7th century A.D ? where there any copts ( as there was a dispute on a fundamentalist christian belive between cpots and regim of heracular) and who formed the bulk of byzantine army ? greeks or armenians ?
I don't know who formed the bulk of troops, possibly inhabitants of empire and not foreigners with Greeks in commanding positions. The copts were Egyptians and these had been since Ptolemaic times been second class citizens who didn't partizipate in large numbers in the Roman and later Byzantine (from their own perspective still Roman) army or navy.
3-) the population of byzantine empire was about 20 million in 7th century A.D before mmuslim invasion. how large was the standing byzantine army that time ? i mean the regular byzantine troops.
It is much harder to find out the population than the army size. I don't know, but you can estimate it between 100,000 to 200,000 (including the navy).
The problem is that there isn't much research on the byzantine military history in the West, although they are the basis for the medieval armies, especially of the knightly orders that developed during the crusades(There is more literature on tactics, troop composition and deployment of the knightly orders and on the late Roman army. During the Rashidun caliphate the Byzantine military was somewhere in between.). Perhaps I can find some more answers, but that's it for now. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following books are available on the topic. Unfortunately only one of them is in a library in my country. You can ask at the logistics departement for someone else to help you research what is written in these books.
Worldcat
Byzantium and its Army; McGeer, Sowing the Dragon's Teeth. Byzantine Warfare
Warfare, state, and society in the Byzantine world, 565-1204
Recruitment and conscription in the Byzantine army c.550-950 : a study on the origins of the stratiotika ktemata
Army, society and religion in Byzantium / / Kaegi, Walter Emil. / 1982
British Library
Byzantine infantryman : / Dawson, Timothy, / 2007
Byzantium and its army, 284-1081 / / Treadgold, Warren T. / 1995
Library of Congress
The late Roman Army in the Near East from Diocletian to the Arab Conquest :proceedings of a colloquium held at Potenza, Acerenza and Matera, Italy / May 2005) /edited by Ariel S. Lewin, Pietrina Pellegrini ; with the aid of Zbigniew T. Fiema and Sylvain Janniard., Oxford :Archaeopress,2007.
Amazon.com
The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East: States, Resources and Armies: 3 (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam) / von England) Workshop on Late Antiquity and Early Islam 1989 (London, Averil Cameron, Lawrence I. Conrad, und G. R. D. King von Darwin Pr / 1996
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
The March 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) 02:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Western sources (they are all I have access to I am afraid) are quiet about any battles other than the Battle of Yarmouk generally speaking. Therefore, I am afraid that I can't be of much help there with that battle you are talking about. According to most sources I know of, at the Battle of Yarmouk, 80,000 Byzantines were crushed by 30,000 Arabs. The remainder of the Byzantine soldiers (who would be between 50,000 and 30,000) were used to defend Egypt (which fell in 641 AD) and Anatolia, which the Byzantines did with some success. At the siege of Constantinople (674), the Byzantines had 30,000 soldiers so that means they could not have lost more than what they did at Yarmouk and Egypt.
There is no doubt that the Arabs won Excellent victories against the Byzantines, and it would put to shame many! However, many other battles were the Byzantines were suppose to have lost hundreds of thousands of men may have been smaller encounters between fleeing Romans and chasing Arabs, with the Arabs winning. In history, the winners write the records and they probably exaggerated them into being massive battles when they could have been simply small encounters, except with Egypt, Yarmouk and also the battles against the Persians.
You should take a look at the featured article Battle of Cannae for comparison. The article needs a lot more citations. Try to finish at least every section with a citation where it can be verified. Another issue is that you should use one spelling variant for names, even if several are possible in Arabian, because otherwise a reader not familiar with Semitic languages gets easily confused. Some issues have been marked with a citation needed tag by me and an additional comment that can be seen when you edit the tag. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I researched a bit about the Byzantine army. I doubt that there were two European armies operating under different command. Probably European is confused with Greek and the two armies are the Asian and the European army augmented by three auxiliary forces (Slavs, Armenians, Arabs). A problem is that each of these Byzantine field armies had usually about 20,000 men, adding together to 40,000 well-equipped troops, absolutely sufficient to battle the Muslim forces on their own. Why they were possibly undermanned must certainly have been researched or was there really the unusual configuration that a field army was split? In this case it can absolutely not be an army of Europeans but one of Greeks from Asia Minor. What is really unclear from this article is who was the supreme commander of the Byzantine army in the field and how did the command structure of the Muslim forces work. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about Europeans, but it is still wrong because half of the Greeks were not Europeans. Romans was the self designation of many inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire, so they are not really an ethnic group and Franks was just anything Germanic. You should perhaps find out which of their field armies was employed, the Asian army or the Asian and the European army. That would greatly help to assess the gravity of the defeat. What still makes me wonder is the low casualty rate for so many battles on the Muslim side, it would seem less superhuman if you could add the number of wounded soldiers for both sides. A question that came to my mind is whether this massive Byzantine buildup was necessary to compensate for less experienced troops and a lack of cavalry? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was generally assumed that the more numerous side has an advantage. Perhaps add "many wounded" or something like this to the Muslim army. What does merit mention is why the emperor himself was not present. Wandalstouring (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take all estimates from reliable sources and give the highest estimate and the lowest estimate of all sources together. I think that is the only possible approach. Internetsites are usually not reliable sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again, I had fairly little sleep and time to work on such a complicated topic, but I have the article on my watchlist and will work on it when I have time and can read more on the topic. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The April 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) 01:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reading page 65 of Nicolle, it merely implies that the Arab army numbered 5,000 at the start of the battle, not that the Byzantine army consisted of 100,000. On the very same page Nicolle states that Vahan commanded only 15,000 to 20,000 troops, so how can you possibly say he implies 100,000? The 4 to 1 ratio seems to be maintained throughout the battle, however the Byzantines were much more extended because of difficulties with terrain, reducing the advantage of numbers. Moreover, it seems the Arabs kept getting reinforcements, while the Byzantine force was constantly plagued by desertion.
You either need glasses or have an inability to understand english, all Nicolle mentions is "At this point [before the battle] the Muslims were still outnumbered by four to one" and
"Vahan commanded 15,000 to 20,000 troops". From this there can only follow that the Muslim force numbered 5,000 or less at the start of the battle.
By the way, Nicolle also gives the Muslim losses as "appaling". Byzantine losses were probably high as well, with their losses increasing by desertion and death of Arab auxiliaries after the retreat was started.
Please give me the exact title of the book you are quoting and I will check it.(You can email me at kurt.scholz@gmx.de) Nice to know that there is someone who wrote a reputable book about it. While the total numbers are known, I still ask myself what the proportion was in cavalry. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of making a 3D map for the battle. But in the meantime please do not revert my edits. The relationship between Umar and Khalid becomes a key point at the end of the battle. I am adding these details because I want the article to reach a Good Article status myself and, inshallah, a featured article. I have almost all the sources at hand with me and have somehow got my hands on al-Tabari and Michael the Syrian at a library here in Oxford. So the edits are merely promising. Please bear with me. Cheers. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 09:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing - Syrian historians of the time like Michael the Syrian who wrote the eventful drama that unfolded on the Battlefield of Yarmuk holds that the name of the Armenian prince was Vahan, then almost all the other authors commented it to be Vahan. Even al-Tabari (and four other Muslim sources) call him Vahan. It's only A.I. Akram who calls him Mahan. Then why use Mahan all over the article space. Furthermore, 'J' in Arabic alphabet more resembles the sound of 'V' than 'M' and the interpretation of the name as Jaban may have had resulted from the real Armenian name 'Vahan'.
SVG has its own limitations. The map that you see is accurate to the finest detail. The map has the most accurate scale as I picked it off from Live maps in 3D view. What would be helpful is if you could provide me with the maps Nicolle drew in his book. Yes, I became aware that the camps might be placed wrongly but do assist me on that. Still don't understand why I need a sandbox :) Cheers. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 08:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before I forget I must tell you one thing. It says in Michael the Syrian that the Wadi Allan and the Wadi Ruqqad at water flowing at the rate I showed. And another thing, because the map is 3D, it is lying down on the incline. So the area at the top corner is further than it seems. Check this out.Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 08:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The May 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) 01:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reading this book and it's quite informative, but I wouldn't count it as a reliable source that should be used on the article. The problem is that it contradicts itself on important issues such as the number of Muslim troops and more important it is not clear what sources were used because it provides zero citations. So it is absolutely not up to academic standards and should thus not be treated as a scholarly work. However, there must be scholarly works Nicolle used and these should be used in the article. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says 15,000 to 20,000 for the Muslims on page 65 and that the Byzantine troops outnumbered them 4 to 1 at page 66. That makes 60,000 to 80,000 Byzantine troops. That contradicts the earlier statement on page 43 that there were 25,000 to 40,000 Muslims at Yarmouk. It can only be solved if the women count as soldiers ;). What should absolutely be stressed is that the total military manpower of the Byzantine army is estimated at 50,000 and the same number for the Muslim army, although the former was a professional force. This implies that most of the Byzatine troops at Yarmouk were raw levies or mercenaries fighting a force that had seen years of warfare. I will check on sources, but still the citations are not up to academic standard. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. I read Mahan has 15,000 to 20,000 men, is the supreme commander of the Byzantine force and splits his army into 20 groups. I assume from my knowledge about the Late Roman army that these groups were in between 500 and 1000 men. He is facing 25,000 to 40,000 Muslims (out of a total of 50,000 Muslim soldiers available). So far you are right and I'm wrong. What is difficult to understand is that there should have been additionally other soldiers bolstering the Byzantine army to 100,000 (more likely because still within a reasonable dimension) or 160,000 men so it outnumbered the Muslims 4:1. Logistics is a real problem with an army of that size and I know of no other battle the Romans fielded such a force except Cannae and training is another because these units are not experienced in cooperating. I have serious doubts and would like you to check from which primary source the statement about this rate of Romans to Muslims comes and how reliable it is. 40,000 Muslims facing 100,000 Romans and mercenaries would be within reason. Another issue is the vast frontline mentioned by Nicolle, I have doubts whether a Muslim force of 25,000 would be able to man it sufficiently. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The divan system sounds interesting. Please write about it in the article. What is also worth mentioning is that only a small minority were original Byzantine troops, thus the defeat was not that much a catastrophy for the Byzantine defence. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicolle says that Byzatine has only an army of 50,000 men, same number for the Arabs. The 100,000 at Yarmouk were not Byzantine soldiers, but mercenaries. The Empire could have never fielded such an army from its own resources. That's the important point to be made. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Battlefield of yarmouk-mohammad adil.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Battlefield of yarmouk-mohammad adil.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
This great warrior has no page. I was wondering whether you would like to get some info on him. He lead the Muslim army in the Battle of Nihawānd, which was the final nail in the coffin for the Persian Empire. Unflavoured (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working through the style and grammar of Rashidun Caliphate army. It needs lots of work to become understandable and it's still far away from being good style. I advise you to use your edits in the English wikipedia to train this langauage a bit. For a start, don't repeat the same words in consecutive sentences. Thank you Wandalstouring (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have already requested numerous times that you also stop making edits to wikipedia, you have no relevant education and are content with writing articles based on primary sources only, and quote articles only when they suit your ideas. Please don't revert edits I make that, you would have seen if you had taken the effort to check the sources, are in fact correct. I know you are a kid on some kind of e-jihad to distort history and blindly believe everything ancient muslim scholars wrote, so I don't care much about your opinion of me.
The June 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) 19:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading Image:Maps.PNG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.
Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Monument of battle of yarmouk-mohammad adil.jpg
The July 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) 02:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The August 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) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The September 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) 23:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brother, I want to use the files made by you in other languages of Wikipedia, (especially Bengali).
Can you help me?--asa 06:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Abu Sayeed Ahmed
){kind=link}
-mohammad_adil_rais.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-mohammad_adil_rais.JPG){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
