User talk:Parsa1993

This user may have left Wikipedia. Parsa1993 has not edited Wikipedia since 12 February 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

If you return to editing, please remove the above template.

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Liberation of Persia from Afghan Rule, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Conquest of Persia by Afsharids. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Persian Resurgence 1729, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. 182.177.111.103 (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Persian Resurgence 1729, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from Language and style of first edit suggest entire page was created as a copy-paste of outside source, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

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 license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Persian Resurgence 1729 and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Persian Resurgence 1729, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Persian Resurgence 1729 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 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Persian Resurgence 1729. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

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:Persian Resurgence 1729 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! — CactusWriter ^(talk) 04:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Khorasan Campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Battle of Damghan (1729) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Parsa1993, you are hereby invited to join the Military history WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history, theory, and practice. You can add your name to the list of members, browse our showcase, train at the Academy, weigh in at current discussions, read the news, or find an open task. We hope you will join us! Anotherclown (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 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.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to complete Tahmasp's Ottoman Campaign. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 22:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I am doing a marathon of article writing and research and should complete all the battles/campaigns/sieges included in the Naderian wars. I think I will complete all of them by the end of this month.

Hello!

I saw the recent load of articles you created regarding the great wars of Nader Shah. Great work. By the way, won't you forget to make more articles for his Caucasian campaign as well? Nader made three invasions in the Caucasus to squash the rebellions in Dagestan, as you know.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.203.230 (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if anyone at all was even noticing the new articles I was adding until your comment. Thanks for noticing and to answer your question, yes I intend to make an exhaustive & encyclopaedic narration of all his battles/campaigns/sieges especially the Caucasian ones. I should be able to finish by the end of this month before university starts. Do feel free to message me with any criticisms and advice as I would appreciate it.

Your recent editing history at Battle of Bint Jbeil shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
The article is under WP:1RR as part of WP:ARBPIA please revert yourself Shrike (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Khorasan Campaign may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the names of territories during the Persian [[Safavid dynasty]] and [[Mughal Empire]] of India ([[circa|ca.]] 1500–1747

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Parsa1993 reported by User:Shrike (Result: ). Thank you. Shrike (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Battle of Bint Jbeil. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   Wifione ^Message 16:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Parsa1993 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, I am uncertain of why I was blocked due to my contribution to battle of bint jbeil article where I provided a reputable source to the two word contribution. However it was reverted 2 or 3 times and I decided to revert it back as no justification was given on the talk page of the article. I can guarantee I won't edit the article again as my main area of contribution is completely unrelated in any case. I would like to be unblocked so I can continue with my Naderian Wars articles which I created and in the process of completing from scratch. Thank youParsa1993 (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This block has expired. Kuru (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Baghavard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ganja. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Siege of Ganja, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Caucasus Campaign (1735). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Sangan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abdali. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Sangan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |commander1=[[Tahmasp II]] <small>(nominal</small><br/>[[Nader Shah|Nader]]<small>(actual)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naderian Wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

userGogo212121 hello Parsa1993 those who are Martyrs of Salahiddeen 91.134.65.79 (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Second Battle of Tikrit (2014–15)‎‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
Article is fully protected now. Please use the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have done all the request except the last one, Talk:Second Battle of Tikrit (2014–15)#Protected edit request on 8 March 2015. I need more inormation and it's explained at the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Allied campaign in Salahuddin province (2014-2015), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Battle of Baiji. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Allied campaign in Salahuddin province (2014-2015) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 18:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Allied campaign in Salahuddin province (2014-2015), a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
• It covers a topic on which we already have an article - Battle of Baiji. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Battle of Baiji, or to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 18:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Allied campaign in Salahuddin province (2014-2015) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 19:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 19:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up: I left you a talkpage note on your Commons talkpage regarding your map you uploaded there. Please respond there. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salahuddin campaign (2014–15), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IED. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not "vandalising" the page as I had only made one change and that is the number of ISIS killed and probably made an accidental on the ISIS strength that is all. So apologies. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0ali1 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Battle of Callinicum. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page. You also have a conflict of interest edit-warring your handmade map which is based on original research into the article despite the warning you got at Commons by Future Perfect at Sunrise.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Moeen al-Kadhimi has been mentioned in the source I provided, but the source use the spelling "Main" as his first name. I used "Moeen" because it has been used in sources more widely. Regarding al-Sadr, one of the sources I added to the article, csmonitor I guess, says Muqtada al-Sadr has sent 1,500 militiamen of the Peace Brigades to participate in the battle. Moreover, I assume the Peace Brigades does not operate under command of the Popular Mobilization Committee (I'm not sure, though, just guessing), so I thought it's important to explicity mention the name of the commander of this particular group. --Z 18:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read your sources please more carefully. It doesn't say the ISF, Shiite militiamen and Sunni Tribesmen are part of the 9,000 engaged force, instead they are part of the overall force. The Al-Jazeera source does not say 2,000 in addition to 5,000 ISF & Militia. Instead, it says 2,000 arrived that day, while an official had said the previous week that 5,000 would join. So the 2,000 confirmed are part of those 5,000 predicted. I could not find absolutely any source that says 20,000 of the 20,000-30,000 force are militiamen. Only the one source that confirmed 2,000 had arrived. Also, I could not find any sources for 3,000 regulars. And the source provided confirms 700-1,000 Sunni tribesmen, not just 1,000. EkoGraf (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here [1], source clearly says the battle is lead by the ISF with the militias in a back-up role, which means there is no way the militias outnumber the regulars. EkoGraf (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a source for the upper estimate of 5,000 Sunnis. EkoGraf (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sources, I've updated accordingly. PS No need for so many refs hehe, one or two is enough. EkoGraf (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message at Fotoriety's talk page that he has made more than three reverts with his reinsertion of those end-of-the battle numbers and warned him unless he reverted his last edit (which you already did) I would be obliged to report him for violation of 3RR. If he does it again I will proceed with this course of action since it would be his 5th revert. EkoGraf (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to your revert of my edit on the number of Iraqi casualties. There is nothing OR or speculative about it. Read the source more carefully please. It clearly says 127 non-militiamen were registered buried at the Najaf cemetery, while one of the militia groups reported 26 of their fighters were additionally killed. That makes a total of minimum 153 dead. As for the upper estimate. It was reported from the body collection centers that they receive on a daily average since the battle started 40-60 bodies from Tikrit. That would make an upper estimate of 840 bodies for the 14 days the battle has lasted up until the report was made and this is in line with WP: CALC. I will try some compromise wording. EkoGraf (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Parsa,

I was fixing the lede in the Nader Shah's invasion of Mughal India, and I was thinking of putting this into it, but I wanted to hear your opinion first. If you agree, I'll put it between the part where it says he has invaded and defeated at karnal etc, and the part that he could affort fighting against neighbouring ottoman turkey.

Basically this;

When a rumour broke out in Delhi that Nader had been assassinated, some of the Indians attacked and killed Persian troops. Nader, furious, reacted by ordering his soldiers to completely plunder and sack the city. During the course of one day (March 22) 20,000 to 30,000 Indians were killed by the Persian troops.^[1] During the massacre, the Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah had to beg Nader to grant him and his people mercy, before ceding the keys of the city and royal treasury to him.^[2] In response, Nader Shah agreed to withdraw, but Mohammad Shah paid the consequence in handing over the keys of his royal treasury, and losing even the Peacock Throne to the Persian emperor. The Peacock Throne thereafter served as a symbol of Persian imperial might. Among a trove of other fabulous jewels, Nader also gained the Koh-i-Noor and Darya-ye Noor diamonds (Koh-i-Noor means "Mountain of Light" in Persian, Darya-ye Noor means "Sea of Light"). The Persian troops left Delhi at the beginning of May 1739. Nader's soldiers also took with them thousands of elephants, horses and camels, loaded with the booty they had collected. The plunder seized from India was so rich that Nader stopped taxation in Iran and all its territories for a period of three years following his return.^[3]

Let me know what you think about it. I think personally it be a little bit too much info for a lede.

- LouisAragon (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that this will make a valuable addition to the article if you can integrate it into the section under "Massacre".Parsa1993 (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aight, I agree about that. Thanks for your response. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this? [2] - LouisAragon (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the proposal that we should replace Mughal empire with Sardar empire, I understand that there have been numerous names given to the empire including Gurkani, Teimuri, Sardar empire and so on. But by far the most common title bestowed upon the empire in English language literature and history is simply Mughal empire which I think is good enough.Parsa1993 (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give the ISBN of this source which you added on a number of Wikipedia articles, including Siege of Baghdad (1733). I was unable to find it on WorldCat. --bender235 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Imam Bukhari Jamaat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naderian Wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khorasan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Parsa, the persian gulf campaign of nader only mentions the sultanate of Muscat and some unnamed pirate groups and sultanates. I was hoping you'd be able to find exactly what other sultanates nader conquered in the persian gulf. That way I may be able to expand the map of his empire in the persian gulf. Did he conquer Bahrain, Qatar or Kuwait?

Would be great if you could find out

Happy thanksgiving

History of Persia (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC) History of Persia (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know beyond a doubt that he conquered Bahrain and the northern rim of the Arabian peninsula from the Hormuz strait stretching all the way round to the gulf of Oman and to the Arabian sea. As to what polities and factions were involved in these regions I would need to do some thorough research before expanding the article. Currently I am pouring through books and documents for the battle of Karnal which needs a major expansion. Parsa1993 (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military of the Afsharid dynasty of Persia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Land Forces. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Aleppo offensive (October 2015) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Gizmocorot (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i saw that on the Naderian wars article there is a bit more information about the war than on the Nader Shah Article. Should that extra information be transferred to nader shah article?Nader Shah (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. could you also create the articles about Battle of Herat (1729), Battle of Andalal, Battle of Avaria, and Siege of Baghdad (1743)? And could you also expand on the articles about nader shah's indian invasion. i dont want to put load on you but i personally think these are necessary

Nader Shah (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think those sections of the Naderian article which expand upon the person of Nader Shah are necessary to the article and provide a better understanding of the wars. Hence I do not believe their removal to another article is necessary. As to your question about the other articles I agree that the battle of karnal and battle of kars are terribly short and uninformative articles which need to be dramatically expanded. I will be doing this soon. Parsa1993 (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Parsa1993, regarding this edit, the source literally states "crushingly", but I guess we can indeed use soundly indeed as well? Just wanted to see what your opinion is, so we will both use consistent terminations for the future. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the source does state "crushing defeat" but I just thought "crushingly" sounded quite odd and I've never heard that before. Soundly beaten or decisively beaten sound much more standard. That's all. Parsa1993 (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsa1993:, hey man, regarding this spree, I've reverted everything back to your last edits as its simply warring from their part, while totally disregarding reliable sources given (even literally quoted) by highly noted historians. If they revert it again without actually writing something on the talk page (which I doubt) you can report them easily. Agha Mohammad khan died two years after the conquest,!and the Russians moved into Tbilisi in 1799. However, for those two years prior to his death Georgia was definetely again under Iranian rule. I have absolutely no objections against rewording if they can actually find a source that literally/specifically states that it was not (re)-conquered, but I doubt they'll ever get one of those. Rewording is an option too, if they well argumentise their concerns with the inclusion of references. Anyways, we'll see. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nader's Dagestan campaign, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darband. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zpeopleheart. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Siege of Mosul (1743) that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Zpeopleheart (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Siege of Mosul (1743). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Do not edit war. Replacement of the disputed materials after your three reversions counts as a 4th revesion of the same material. Kindly self revert or I will be fored to report your disruptive behaviours to the appropriate noticeboard. You have a history of edit warring. Zpeopleheart (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Hello Parsa1993,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Siege of Baghdad (1743) for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. MarkYabloko 06:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you could make some articles aboutthe wars of Timur. There are alot of red links in the list of battles box. thanks
Timur073767 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not wait several days, thinking i am no longer watching the page, before you revert my edit. Even worse is to falsely claim that i concurred with you when i clearly didn't-- as the article's talk page shows. Your action is shifty at best and will be reported if repeated.--49.180.164.93 (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not buying your excuses. I have stated my reasoning clearly each time. If you continue making edits using shifty excuses then i will report you for disruptive editing.--49.195.20.197 (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have referred you for DR.--49.180.169.150 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parsa, has anyone ever recognized your efforts? Despite your amazing job on the Battle of Karnal article and battles related to Nader Shah, people seem to have a taste for reverting. Any "Barnstars"?

To be honest I was only ever interested in creating those articles because I felt that it was a shame that there were virtually no wikipedia articles on Nader's spectacular military career. All I wanted was to establish a rudimentary pool of historiography for one one the most interesting military careers of the eighteenth century for anyone who was interested in that fascinating era. I couldn't care less about any rewards or Barnstars. Just the fact that you read the Karnal article and thought it did a good job covering the events of the battle is more than good enough for me. I only hope I did the subject matter at least a measure of justice, and of course thank you for your kind words.Parsa1993 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zand dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lak. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.teheran.ir/spip.php?article1970#gsc.tab=0 . There are tons of paintings of Nader Shah's battles from this french site. I think they would be very useful in your articles about Nader's battles. Hope this helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.142.104 (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about copyright issues?Parsa1993 (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooooh your right..... maybe it's old enough to be in public domain now... not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.66.196 (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1_%D9%88_%D8%B3%D9%BE%D8%A7%D9%87%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4.jpg from commons got away with it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.193.113 (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These images are in the public domain in Iran. They are free to use. 24.114.58.64 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently looking to expand and improve this article, in no small part to removing Baddeley, a journalist and not a reliable source.

I found this book, which gives the impression that Sheikh Mansur's rebellion was in and of itself a separate conflict from the Russo-Turkish War (1787-92). In this book page22, states the Russian High Command had made no plans for the Caucasus during the 1787 war. In your opinion, of what you know and/or can find, should Mansur's rebellion and the Russian response(s) be separate from the 1787 war or included? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This book page 99 states operations in the Caucasus front was ruled out. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't feel I have the expertise in this field to give an authoritative answer either way. My area of research is from late 1500s to mid 1700s Iran. I'm afraid I'm just not well-read enough in this area to contribute to the above discussion. Parsa1993 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Parsa, thank you for your useful contributions in Iranian history articles. I have recently read the article Morteza Mirza Afshar (Nassrollah Mirza). I want to inform you that according to "Alamara-ye Naderi" which is written by Mohammad-Kazem Marvi, the former name of this prince was Morteza-Qoli not Morteza. I believe that it is better to move this article to "Nasrallah Mirza (son of Nader Shah)". This prince is better known under the name of Nasrallah, on the other hand he shouldn't be confused with another Afsharid prince "Nasrallah Mirza (son of Shahrokh)". Kind regards Shfarshid (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the right flag of the Afshar dynasty? Please be sure, hopefully you find a reference, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.142.104 (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, I have seen some of your works recently, I wanted to say I'm very impressed. I really like what you did in Battle of Fallujah (2016), Kuweires offensive (September–November 2015) and Second Battle of Tikrit. Your maps are amazing. I'm so happy that we have you in Wikipedia. It would be great if you draw a map for new operation in Aleppo which is called Aleppo offensive (June–August 2016). You can get some inspiration from this link: syria[dot]liveuamap[dot]com I'm big fan of your works, cant wait to see your new work. Good Luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.237.42.108 (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Parsa1993. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Julien's Persian War has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Julian's Persian War has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Parsa1993. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the article, Battle of Mosul (1745) for deletion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Perso-Ottoman War (1730-1735) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Campaigns of Nader Shah is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaigns of Nader Shah until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 12:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]