User talk:Gabr-el

Surprise is on our side!

SURPRISE IS ON OUR SIDE! Hi, welcome to my user talk page. What, were you expecting a greeting party?. About Me My Religion Qualifications My major contributions Achievments Me in a box When I am Angry, I feel like this What I think Current projects Talk to me people Email me people Quotation proposal

i agree

yes i agree, with you that many battles were exaggrated. Including ajnadyn and fahal. i have found some good books over it in the military college in my home town. i will be giving references from them they suggest some reasonable numbers for fahal yarmouk and ajnadyn. Thanks for your response. Mohammad Adil (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• And yes i would like to add that according to muslim sources the power of byzantines was shattered in levant and they were no longer able to defend egypt as they defended syria against the muslim invasion.

At its peak the primary sources even exaggrated mention only 50,000 roman army in egypt. the strength of muslim army that invaded egypt wil also help one to understand that what was the level of roman defences there only 4000 men under Amr ibn al-ass marched to egypt and were later reinforced by only 8000 men, making total army of only 12,000 men ( which is half as compair to army of Syrian invasion ) i have saw many western sources that says "after loosing levant heraculis prepared to defend egypt" i mean if this was the defence that 12,000 can run over with the help of copts rebels, then i would not call it a defence. heraculis didn't had resources or man power for that task, which implied that roman suffered great losses in levant and western anatolia. Mohammad Adil (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Komnenian Army

The Komnenian army page is now much improved, it contains material which might be usefully transferred to the main Byzantine Army page, as a great deal of the arms and armour information equally is applicable to the whole period c. 950 to 1204.

Regards,

Urselius (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I thought that with a little tweaking the arms and armour section for the Komnenian page could be used to fill the gap in the description of the Middle Byzantine period army's equipment on the Byzantine Army page. I don't see any particular need for doing it quickly, but the information is now available. Your input would, of course, be appreciated.

Regards,

Urselius (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Nicaea (1210)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Siege of Nicaea (1210), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Siege of Nicaea (1210). Aramgar (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: WTF?

That would appear to be the result of an accident when I was trying to fix some page-move vandalism with some other admins. I noticed I'd gotten beat to it a moment too late, and apparently stopped it halfway through: when I checked my logs, I didn't see that it had been deleted. Thanks for notifying me, I've restored it now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if it wasn't, we'd have kinda been in some trouble there.... >_> Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Scripture, Aramaic, Chaldean

Like your quotes from Jesus on User page, also read about Mar Paulos, learned more of the Chaldean Church and its recent history. My appreciation grows. I read Aramaic am in Syro Chaldean Church offshoot although my interest here in Wikipedia is KAL 007Bert Schlossberg (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Achaemenid Assyria

Thank you khon. I think its ready for a good article review. Chaldean (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See how things work better when we work together through diplomacy? I'm glad we got something good done. Chaldean (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dodgy source dude

Why don't I find it surprising that he's at it at other articles? I've lost count of the times he has been challenged for sources, then he puts some up and a brief reading of them reveals them to not be a source for what he has added. Either he's not very bright or he's outright deceiving people. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been a week of hell, I tell you. The high point was explaining to him how one uses a search engine properly [1] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you. Well, hello, and I am glad you will let it stand. The Fall of Constantinople has always been an interesting event to me. (Red4tribe (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Emotional is not the best way to say it, which I stated

As I said in the article, "A better way to say this is it is not emotional so much as a position of faith. Wikipedia has no faith; it is beyond its ability and purpose. Does that make sense?" The position you have stated is one of faith. I am not speaking from faith or any other position but policy and style. I have taken the position you have taken and lost the argument. I have stated that several times. You have no need to be offended; however, if you want an apology I freely give it and please accept it. Regardless, the position of style remains the same. If we can see it clear to have it changed, I would be very happy. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered your question on my talk page, please delete it when you are done, thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC) I am glad you asked. When I stand in church and remember how I got my faith, I am always so grateful for those graces. St. Thomas Aquinas, when he was writing about Divine Revelation said "There are some truths that some people will not accept unless they hear it straight from God." I guess I was one of those people who needed to hear it that way. NancyHeise (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Humiliating

Certainly the emperor would have considered the defeat to be humiliating. Thus it should be attributed to him. The concept of humiliation is also culture specific (Roman may have considered "kiss[ing] the ground before the Sultan" to be humiliating, but the Sultan himself, presumably a Muslim, put his face on the ground on atleast 5 occasions everyday). Because of its subjectivity to POVs, this should be attributed per Wikipedia:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. You may say "the Byzantines suffered what they considered to be a humiliating defeat."

On the contrary you can mention that the emperor was stripped of his ceremonial rituals and honors. This probably wouldn't require attribution.Bless sins (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the point. Muslims (and as you said Christians and Jews) take pride in putting their heads to the ground. They don't consider themselves to be "humiliated" before God, but rather amongst the honored ones.

The discussion above we are having points out that the term "humiliating" is quite subjective and POV. It should be attributed to the party that considers the humiliation.

Yes, I will add any developments I know of, that are not covered in the article.Bless sins (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Double battle!

Hi,

I've just created a page on the Battle of Hyelion and Leimocheir and subsequently noticed that it already exists under the name 'Meander Valley.' Obviously they should be merged. In my defence I have original primary sources for my description (Choniates), it is a little more detailed, and the name I chose for the battle comes from these.

Urselius (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was my bad

Reading the section again, I agree that I have been quite uncivil towards you, and I do appologise for that. I rushed my reading in a ten min break at work, added with the stress of given the position of my boss who leaft for maternity leave - which I am in no way qualified nor trained for, I hope you can understand how I assumed the worst straightaway.

And yes, I can see now that Christians and Muslims never lived, and never will live peacefully in the middle-east as long as there are fanatics and hardliners on BOTH sides. And BTW, my family were Christians as recently as my great grandparents, and we WILLINGLY converted, not by force.

Take Care now. Pink Princess (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, my username is supposed to be foolish like I explained to you before - and it's purpose it to make fun of superficial idiots who make assumptions about me from a wiki name, not seeing past the irony. Pink Princess (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, you do fully deserve that appology after I re-read what I written and really regretted it. I'm very thankfull for your acceptance too, and very glad our friendship can be restored. Pink Princess (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Cooperation

Hi bro, thats a great idea, and it'll also teach me how to properly use wikipedia. I'll be very gratefull if we'll be able to do that sometime rather me not learning how to edit and just angrily rant. It'll also be fun and bring me my first pride of improving something here. Its a very good idea man, just contact me whenever you have time and I'll be glad to help out. Thanks bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabuchadnessar (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine-Arab Wars 780-1180

This isn’t about who’s “far more resourceful,” or who’s “petty.” It also isn’t about nationalist pride or bragging rights. Were the Arab armies larger than the Byzantines? I’m sure they were. But I’m guessing and so are you. Try reading Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. How about a published source that gives some estimate or approximation of the actual size of the Fatimid and Abbasid armies? Bart172 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So referring you to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research is now an act of bad faith? You need to choose your words more carefully. For one thing, if you make comments like “It is a widely accepted fact that if you have more land and more men and more resources, as you do when control all of the Middle East, then you have more. Capeach?” that sounds a lot like original research, and it sounds like you have no verifiable sources. And if you’re going to write things like your first comment on my talk page, then I’m going to ask about WP:NOR.

Second, you’re still doing it, you’re still engaging in original research. Specifically, it’s WP: SYN. You’re citing sources that say Byzantine armies were outnumbered and using that extrapolate a conclusion about the actual size of the Abbasid and Fatamid armies. That’s not an unreasonable leap, but it’s still a leap. How about actual sources that directly discuss the size of Abbasid and Fatamid forces? That’s what you need under WP:NOR. Published sources say that the Fatimid forces were always quite small. See The First Crusade 1096-99: Conquest of the Holy Land by David Nicolle at p. 26. And the Abbasid forces were not enormous. Contemporary sources consistently said that the Abbasids were outnumbered when they brought down the Umayyad forces. See The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State by Hugh Kennedy at p. 98. Bart172 (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Achaemenid Assyria

Well, we are close to making it a good article. But the reviewer wanted a few citations for the last two paragraph's you wrote; "Beginning in the 1st century BC, the Romans began expanding their Empire at the cost of the Parthians. Initially the Nomadic military tactic of circling and shooting worked to deadly effect against the slow heavy moving infantry of the Romans. In time however, superior technology and strategy drove the Parthians out of the Mediterranean and most of Asia Minor. The Parthians continued to resist Roman rule, invading and in turn being invaded by the Romans many times, with their capital Ctesiphon being sacked three times. The consequence of these bloody and inconclusive wars meant that the Assyrian provinces bore the brunt of the fighting, with Assyrian troops fighting for one side and then, at the change of the governing of the lands of Mada and Athura, fighting for the other side. Naturally such events served to undermine the Assyrians.

By the 2nd century AD under the Emperor Trajan, the Romans began to achieve the upper hand against the Parthians and established the Roman Province of Assyria along the Euphrates and Tigris. " Chaldean (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't take any credit for that article, unless you take equal credit. Your the one started, I just finished it. I guess we make a good team. Chaldean (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you that I'll be visiting the OC this coming month :) I am looking to buy a business there. How far is it from SD? Chaldean (talk) 06:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I'll be renting a car, but don't know if I will be allowed to put that many miles on it. But when I do move there, We'll definatly meet up. Chaldean (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Trollshere

Template:Trollshere has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. dorftrottel (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

birthday

Yes I had a birthday almost a month ago. The fish you see in the picture are halibut - and those are actually small ones (can you believe it?). There are fishing boats up there that have cranes attached to the back so they can actually bring it the really big ones that can get up to 400 lbs. We dont have a crane and are very happy that we have only ever caught the "little ones", they taste better anyway. Thanks for the nice happy birthday message. NancyHeise (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Map of the Byzantine Empire

I have a disagreement on the subject of the map of the infobox of the article with the User:Red4tribe. I say that the map of the infobox has to depict the empire during the reign of Basil II when the empire reached its highest peak. However Red4tribe confuses the peak of the empire which is an economic, military and cultural progress with the territorial extent of the empire and thinks that the map of the empire under Justinian's reign must be put when the empire really was larger but had not succeeded in resolving all its problems and cannot be characterized as the best time of the empire. I explained him that the map of the article has to show the empire under its zenith which is a matter of a general situation and not a matter of extent. After all the extent of the empire under Basil II was not very small! I need your suuport in order to persuade him. Dimboukas (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Men kissing men

Is uncommon, but not really taboo in the West. It has been steadily declining in popularity with the growth of homosexual awareness, both in Socialist and Capitalist countries. Here is a fresh example of such a kiss: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5mUOauqk950 (3:18). --217.172.29.4 (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)