Jump to content

User talk:Parsa1993

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 49.180.164.93 (talk) at 02:44, 14 December 2015 (→‎Tikrit edits: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Liberation of Persia from Afghan Rule

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of Persian Resurgence 1729

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:

copyright violation

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]

Copyright problem: Persian Resurgence 1729

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:

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]

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

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]

Reference Errors on 5 September

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

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]

Invitation to join MILHIST

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]

Welcome to MILHIST!

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:

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]

Tahmasp's Ottoman Campaign

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.

Good work so far! :)

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]

Thank you

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.

September 2014

Stop icon

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]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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]

September 2014

Stop icon with clock
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.

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

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]

Siege of Ganja

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]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

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]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

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]

October 2014

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]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

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]

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

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.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!

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]

March 2015

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]

Second Battle of Tikrit (2014–15)

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]

Allied campaign in Salahuddin province (2014-2015)

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of Allied campaign in Salahuddin province (2014-2015)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of Allied campaign in Salahuddin province (2014-2015)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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:

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of Allied campaign in Salahuddin province (2014-2015)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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]

March 2015

Stop icon 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]

A note

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]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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]

"Second Battle of Tikrit"

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]

March 2015

Information icon 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]

al-Kadhimi snd al-Sadr

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]

Proposed deletion of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis

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]

Strength in Tikrit battle

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]

Casualties revert

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]

what do you think about this?

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]

References

  1. ^ Marshman, P. 200
  2. ^ Soul and Structure of Governance in India. Retrieved 26 May 2014.
  3. ^ This section: Axworthy pp.1-16, 175-210
Aight, I agree about that. Thanks for your response. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

undiscussed move

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]

Ghafouri, History of Iran's Wars

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]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of Imam Bukhari Jamaat

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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]

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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]

Persian gulf campaign

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]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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]

Edit warring on Aleppo offensive (October 2015)

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.

November 2015

Information icon 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:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

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:

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]

Nader Shah Article

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

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]

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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]

November 2015

Information icon 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]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Siege of Baghdad (1743)

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]

Request

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]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

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]

Tikrit edits

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Parsa1993&oldid=695149549"