User talk:Mohammad adil

On the French page something is mentioned about the Ghassanides, the Christian Arabs. It is written there that the Ghassanides defected to the Muslim side because they hadn't received payment for several months and the Muslims promised to pay their salaries. No source is mentioned. Do you know something about this? Wereldburger758 (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the copy-edit of the page of Khalid ibn Walid will have to wait. I am now copy-editing the Rashidun conquest of Persia. Wereldburger758 (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Khalid ibn al-Walid, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. warrior4321 03:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change it to say they drive on the right? This is incorrect. Fences&Windows 01:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nb the field "Drives on the ..." in the infobox refers to which side of the road the car drives on, not which side of the car the driver sits.   pablo_hablo. 11:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion at User talk:Fences and windows#Pakistan.   pablo_hablo. 12:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salam, I have started a WikiProject to improve Karachi-related articles, if you are interested in contributing to the content then visit the project here, thanks. Taqi Haider (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

i am nominating Battle of Yarmouk for military history A-class assessment second time, i am done with 2 steps mentioned there i.e moving the previous nomination page [1] to archive1 and then updating the link for the last review on articlehistory on battle of yarmouk's talk page.

But i am not getting the 3rd step, i tried every possible thing but cant really get how to update transclusion in the relevant assessment archive page.

wht is that in the relevant assessment archive page is ? and how to update it ?

3rd step as mentioned on the a class assesment page is as follow...

3- Update the transclusion in the relevant assessment archive page, found by using the "What Links Here" feature.

all the steps are here [2].

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been fixed. You can go ahead and replace the redirect at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Battle of Yarmouk with your new nomination verbiage. I'll follow-up and fix any formatting issues. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Siege of Damascus (634), it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. You made three edits in the same minute! Use the preview button. warrior4321 23:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and for the barnstar. Looking at your profile, it seems that you make maps. If you have access to the book, would it be possible for you to create the maps in Walter Kaegi's Heraclius Emperor of Byzantium that are relevant to my article? For reference they are on pgs. 20, 66, 123, 157, 164, 193. I only ask because I personally have no idea how to make those high quality graphics. Thanks. DemonicInfluence (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for volunteering to help. I do have access to the Kaegi book. If you could tell me your email or something, I could send you scanned pages of the necessary maps. Thanks. DemonicInfluence (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you the email with the maps I mentioned. Sorry for the offensive name I picked, those were my from my younger days. Thanks for helping me on this project. If any of the images are unclear, please ask me. I won't respond to the email I sent the images from. DemonicInfluence (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update and the new shiny map :) I appreciate your efforts. DemonicInfluence (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In both of the new maps, you have a typo. The legend should say "Slav immigration and Avar attacks" not "Slav immigration and Avae attacks" DemonicInfluence (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note - glad to know my comments are useful. I would be glad to look at it again - why don't you work on it and when you feel it is ready for a second look, let me know and I can make more comments then, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I have granted autoreviewer rights on your account, as you have created numerous valid articles. This will have little or no effect on your editing, and is intended mainly to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information see Wikipedia:Autoreviewer, and feel free to ask if you have any questions. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the battle in which Khalid Ibn Walid stopped fighting to pick up his helmet which contained Muhammad's strand of hair? Please reply over here, and place a {{talkback}} on my talk page. warrior4321 04:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was Battle of Yarmouk.الله أكبرMohammad Adil 08:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

warrior4321 19:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All three of your open A-Class reviews at the Military history WikiProject have been closed as unsuccessful because they have been open for 28+ days and do not have sufficent consensus for promotion. In the future, please do not nominate more than one article at a time to the ACR process so you can adequately devote time to satisfy the reviewer's comments as well as not strain the system for the reviewers. Also, before re-nominating these articles, the issues brought forward need to be fixed. For the Coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, -MBK₀₀₄ 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just completed a review of this article. It's quite close to meeting GA criteria, though some issues remain. See the review here. WTF? (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is progress coming along with this GA? It's been on hold for about two weeks now. Thanks! WTF? (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Mohammad!

I'm considering reviewing the Battle of Yarmouk for GA. First though I'll read the article, possibly copy-edit, then present a normal review or a GA one. I'm a little hesitant to do the latter, because I've only done one GA review before. Thought I'd let you know. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is mentioned that Emessa was captured by Khalid in 637 CE, although the Battle of Yarmouk states Khalid had been replaced by Ubaidah. Was Ubaidah instated as a superior commander to Khalid for example? --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be mentioned in the article; somewhere along the lines of: Khalid was replaced by Ubaidah as overall commander, although the former still functioned as field commander. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Prelude section, it is stated Though previous campaigns led by Khalid were successful, he was replaced by Abu Ubaidah. No mention is made of Khalid being retained as a commander. Currently it is implied that Khalid was removed from command altogether. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is mentioned in the section on the Rashidun Army, although it does not mention when. I think it is more appropriate and better for the reader if that piece of information is mentioned in the Prelude, since that section deals with with the capture of Emessa. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, if you'd like to implement any changes please do so. I think I'll take note of any issues with the article and present them all at once during the review. (if I will make a review; don't hang any expectations on me!) Regards. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes mention of one Jabla. Is this one and the same as Jabalah ibn al-Aiham? If not, you should clarify who this other Jabla is, and what role did he play in the battle. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright... There is also mention of Jabalah ibn Abi Laham. Same person as well? BTW I've copy-edited up to day 1 of the battle; I've shaved around 1,500 bytes from the article. Tell me what you think when you have time. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you presented yourself as an Urdu-speaker on your personal page (perhaps you're a Punjabi). You blindly reverted my NPOV edits, please do not start edit-war with me. I provided sources to my edits so please try not to revert again without a discussion. I'm Pashtun originally from the Quetta area that's the reason I got involved with editing that article. The article lacks sources, it will be a good idea to source everything. Your version has ridiculous claims like "According to non-government sources the population along with Afghan immigrants is between 14,00000-16,00000" and there is no reliable source provided for this. All the sources are junks and that's why I removed them.--119.73.11.106 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2010 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) 22:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting the Battle of Yarmouk to GA class. This is an important article and I commend your efforts. I was supposed to continue on the copy-editing, but life has been crazy recently. Should I find the time, I'll get back to it. Good luck and all the best :) Sherif9282 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mohammad! I removed that flag from several articles, because it is not really the "Flag of the Byzantine Empire": the double-headed eagle was not used as an emblem until the 11th century (and is securely attested only after ca. 1320), in addition it was never featured in flags (as far as we know) but only on clothes etc, and never used on a yellow background but always deep red/purple. This flag is a modern design (late 19th century) connected with the rise of Greek nationalism and irredentism. It is the current flag of the Greek Orthodox Church, but in no way is it a true Byzantine design, despite what many people think. I have written on the issue in Byzantine heraldry article. In short, the only truly attested Byzantine flag is this. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 16:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the short answer is, there was no "Byzantine flag" in the 7th century, at least not in the sense we speak of flags today. Byzantium used a variety of banners and signa, but no single design was used as a "national" flag. If you want a representative symbol, I'd suggest using a Chi-Rho (for example this or this). Constantine ✍ 14:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as per your request at the Guild of Copy Editors, I have copy edited this article for you. I would appreciate any feedback you may have. Thanks. -- S Masters (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message for you at the milhist talk page concerning your request for an outside opinion. I hope it helps. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2010 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) 22:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salam alaykoum akhy wa barakallahou fik for all your articles macha allah. I contribute for WP essentially in french but in english i try to etablish the links between the articles in arabic and english. I would like to ask if u can to search a picture for ghazwatu Mu'ta like this 'Plan of Mu'ta in arabic' or if you find better than this. Wa 'alaykoum salam akhy. — Skandar ^blabla 13:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asalamualikum...

i didnt get you, do you want a picture of battlefield of mutah or do you want a map that shows location of that battlefield according to present day geography.

Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salam alaykoum, the both if u can but it's not urgent. Salam :) — Skandar ^blabla 22:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2010 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) 19:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

!السلام عليكم Just wanted to comment directly to you, Mohammad, as you seem to have a clear dedication to the Battle of Yarmouk page. I am not trying to trample on the great work that has been done there, I'm just trying to suggest that there are some definite issues with some of the sources relied upon. I believe that the Islamic sources that make up the overall conquest narrative should definitely be included as the basis of the article, I'm just hesitant to rely so heavily on al-Tabari. Specifically, it's that we know for a fact that at least SOME of his reports regarding the battle are fabricated by the very fact that he presents such a wrong date for it.

I hope that the summer months will give me some of an opportunity to work on the article myself rather than just make suggestions, but the graduate life is an arduous one (as you may or may not be able to relate!). Riskbreaker2987 (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, Mohammad, because of the sources that are used; namely Akram, who relies heavily on al-Tabari (even though, for the record, his citations are AWFUL. They definitely show the date in which he was writing). There is also more than just "a page" that exists within al-Tabari's Tarikh, but I'm certainly not interested in arguing symantecs. In looking at the references, though, almost all of the citations are from modern sources (especially Akram), some of which are of debatable scholarship. I'm just trying to urge awareness that the narrative isn't at all clear on details as the works of Akram and Nicolle suggest they are.

Again, thank you for the dialogue, though. On another note, is there a reason that Ibn Ishaq is listed? I asked that originally, and never got a response.

Lastly, regarding the link that you posted on the talk page, I'd like to mention that the author of that book, Robert Hoyland, is actually my Ph.D. supervisor. ;-) Riskbreaker2987 (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion we had actually agreed on the low quality of the article and a special focus on the misrepresentation of the number of forces involved. Agreement was reached in favour of the opinion numbers given were too high, only your tireless reverting back of edits by others has made that your one-sided view of the battle has persisted.

You have clearly shown to lack understanding of historical research, but your antisocial behaviour has caused you to gain the upper hand, editing endlessly while others did not have as much time as you did. I currently have no time to make wikipedia articles and edits, yet every once in a while I hope to revive discussion on the Yarmouk and related pages and get a decent article started.

Sadly you consider yourself the owner of the Yarmouk article and will remove any edits out of line of your fantastic ideas on what happened at Yarmouk. That's how it has been for a couple of years now. Wiki1609 (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim1357 ^talk 00:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another user expressed concern with some of your edits regarding this article and I'm curious why you consider this battle in particular to be a Pakistani Military Victory. For one, the provided citations (namely [4] and [5]) indicate that Pakistan was decisively defeated in this war and that "Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore". The source does not claim that Pakistani forces repelled the Indian attack but instead it claims that by the time the United Nations intervened on September 22nd, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat. I feel that the claims made by the Pakistani military are irrelevant and do not come from a neutral source. As such, I just wanted to let you know that I am modifying this article.

Thanks, Vedant (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2010 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) 21:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mohammad adil/infobox caliph has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as the editor to have introduced the quotes in this article, could you comment on the changes made now please. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 16:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Note: [6], [7] → AA ^(talk) — 16:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Mohammad adil-Rashidun-empire-at-its-peak-close.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across your edits on Pakistan, and all those edits of your are literally pointless and is to be considered vandalism, if you cannot play a positive part in further improving the article, please do not remove key edits of other users. And don't edit just for the sake of increasing your edit counts. Pakistan article needs more elaboration instead of removal of sections and lame edits. Please refrain from such edits, repeated vandalism will put your account in jeopardy. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your reversion of the correction of a number of mistakes in English grammar and other edits by a number of editors. Unless an English grammar error was made originally by a source and is being reproduced, anyone can correct it. If there was something in the whole set of changes you reverted along with the grammar errors, then there's a process where you can work that out with the other editors. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Battle of Phillora‎ has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Battle of Phillora. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you explain about your edit here along with your edit summery? I see it as Vandalism. --Aliwiki (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the article about the Military of Albania and it's service branches. Could you please help me with it? The current article is not correct and has a lot of working points. For the branches see this File:Albania Military Forces.png file. Please consider helping me! --Vinie007 16:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Wars of Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mohammad adil/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mohammad adil/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mohammad adil/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Brother, I have seen a help request on the discussion page of Chiltan Adventurers Association Balochistanfor reducing of the size of "Certificate JPG PIC" if you please help them for,Ali Mohammad Khilji (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still around bro ?! You have not edited anything for a long time. Unflavoured (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok bro, good luck in your job. If you decide to go active again, please let me know so we can collaborate. Take care and good luck !! Unflavoured (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salam 'alaykoum. Can u move this picture on wikimedia commons ? I can't use it form france for the same article. Barakallahou fik. wa salam 'alaykoum — Skandar ^blabla 03:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adil bahi, I have a problem that when I have to edit something in any page the text has been disappeared automatically, please help me why this is happening to e,--Ali Baba (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

I guess you were attempting the article to be promoted to FA, appreciate the attempts. We've put it up again at FAC. :) --lTopGunl (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]