User talk:Ro4444

This user may have left Wikipedia. Ro4444 has not edited Wikipedia since 30 November 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

1

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) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ro, I don't know if its best to reach you here or at the commons so I'm contacting you at both. I was hoping you could do a burdensome favor for me. I've been working on improving the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) article lately and noticed that it has a pretty lousy map in the infobox (File:Bahri Dynasty 1250 - 1382 (AD).PNG) Seeing that you created a great map for the Ayyubid dynasty article, would you be able to create a similar map (greatest extent) for the Mamluks, if your schedule allows? The following link gives a decent idea of the extent of the Mamluk Sultanate, at least under the Bahri dynasty: [1]. If you can't view the link, I can upload a screenshot of it. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The map on this link is even more detailed: [2]. --Al Ameer (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Al Ameer son,

Good to hear from you again. I'm happy to try and create a Mamluk map. My historical and geographical knowledge for that era is considerably more rusty, so it'll probably take some time for me to get up to speed. As a preliminary thought, a map showing the sultanate on the eve of the Ottoman conquest would probably depict it at its "height," so I may start there.

In addition, I never followed up with the issue of how to treat Qaraqush's holdings on the Ayyubid map. I wasn't able to get a copy of that book, but the more I thought about it the more inclined I was to put it on the map in some form. I might edit that map to show Tripoli and Gabes as Ayyubid holdings, or at least give it a modified shading. Ro4444 (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much and let me know if I could be of any help. Honestly, my knowledge of the Mamluk sultanate is also a bit rusty, but I'm learning a lot as I edit Mamluk-related articles (coverage of the Mamluks on Wikipedia has been woefully lacking). The source I linked to above (Page 4) seems to depict the sultanate and its vassals in 1516. Speaking of vassals, such as Nubia and Hejaz, should they be included in the map too? As for Qaraqush's holdings, I'll leave how to handle that up to you, your suggestions sound good. Also, sorry for my late reply. As I may have said before, I don't check in often at the commons, but I will do so more often now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding to you sooner. I don't often check the commons myself; I just happened to see your message there that day. I've transferred this conversation here so hopefully we both see updates sooner.

Anyway, I went ahead and created a new map: here. I ultimately used the year 1317 AD, which I felt was better than 1516 for a few reasons:

• 1317 is a well-documented year in regards to Mamluk activities to the south of Egypt; not only did the Mamluks install a Muslim vassal as king of Makuria, but that same year a Mamluk army made an expedition to both 'Aydhab and Sawakin. This gives a pretty clear picture of the extent of Mamluk authority in these regions.
• More generally, the fourteenth century is the last period where we have good information on affairs in Nubia. The history of the whole region in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries is completely obscure; it's not really known what was happening there. Mamluk authority in Upper Egypt also nosedived in the late fourteenth century, with the Banu al-Kanz acting as they pleased independent of Mamluk provincial authorities and contributing to the desolation of Aswan. The Mamluk presence in Upper Egypt was seriously eroded for a long period, and if it was weak there then it seemed like a bit of a stretch to assume that they could maintain a hold on Makuria during this period (especially since Mamluk control over Makuria tended to be rather transitory even at the height of their interventions there).
• Also in the fourteenth century, the Mamluks held a small bit of the Jazira that would later be lost by the Timurid invasions. They had also conquered Malatya, and held territories in the far north that would later be taken by the Dulkadirids (who were not always submissive to the Mamluks).
• A 1516 map would have required figuring out the extent of Mamluk conquests in the Yemen in that year, which wouldn't have been easy. The Mamluk conquest of that region was never complete, and the Zaydis and Tahirids both held a collection of various districts. It also seemed ridiculous to claim that 1516 was the year of the Mamluks' greatest extent, when the Ottomans were sweeping through Syria that very year.

So to sum up, 1317 seemed like a pretty good year to do the map; it was a well-documented period and if the Mamluks weren't quite at their greatest extent at that point, they were certainly close.

Regarding Makuria and the Hijaz, I showed both as being part of the sultanate. In the case of Mecca, the Mamluks kept a representative there, the names of the sultans were recited in the Friday prayers, and they regularly interfered in the struggles for who would control the sharifate (including sending armies to back their preferred candidates). On the other hand, I couldn't find any good evidence for including Kufra and Massawa in the Mamluk sphere. Regarding Massawa, it appears to have been held by the rules of al-Dahlak, who were regular allies of the Mamluks, but I see anything to indicate any sort of Mamluk control over the city.

Anyway, hope you like the map! Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, suggestions or factual changes. Ro4444 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The map looks great! Thank you for your efforts and for a fantastic job. I just added it the article, feel free to adjust the caption if necessary. As for the year, 1317 is fine. It happens to be during the third reign of an-Nasir Muhammad, which was, as the main article says, "often considered by historians of the Mamluk period to be the apex of both the Bahri regime specifically and the Mamluk Sultanate in general". Maybe one day, a map of Yemen under Mamluk rule could be made, but it wouldn't be necessary, and as you say, the political situation there is unclear. I can't find any issues with the map, it's very detailed. I did notice that you labeled the area just north of Aleppo as "al-Thughur"; was this still a district by the Mamluk era? I thought it evaporated with the end of Byzantine rule in that region.

I'd also like to know where you got access to the Nasiri cadastral survey listing the Egyptian regions. Moreover, do you know if these regions are administratively different from the Syrian provinces? The reason I ask is because I'd like to incorporate this information into the article. All I've gathered from the sources I've used so far, is that Egypt as a whole was a province, while Syria consisted of several provinces, namely Safad, Karak, Damascus, Tripoli, Hama and Aleppo (and possibly Gaza). Cheers and thanks again, --Al Ameer (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Awesome, glad you're happy with it! For the record, I really like the improvements you've made to the article itself; it was sorely in need of expansion and the additions are well done. Hopefully the remaining years of Mamluk rule can also be expanded upon, but even now what we have is significantly better than just a month ago.

The Mamluks did revive the concept of the thughur, although this was more symbolic than an actual administrative division. The EI2 article says the following on the subject:

"Al-Dimashki (8th/14th century) lists the Mesopotamian thughur as Malatya, Kamakh, Shimshat, al-Bira, Hisn Mansur, Kal'at al-Rum, al-Hadath al-Hamra' and Mar'ash, and those of Syria as Tarsus, Adhana, al-Massisa, al-Haruniyya, Sis and Ayas (ed. Mehren, 214). But by the time this latter author was writing, the thughur had ceased to have any significance as outposts against the infidels, for the embattled Rupenid kingdom of Little Armenia, which alone of the former Christian powers of the region survived Mamluk pressures until 776/1375 [see Sis], was no serious military threat to the Muslims. The terms 'awasim and thughur lingered on in Mamluk administrative geography, but anachronistically, as when al-Kalkashandi, Subh al-a'sha, iv, 228-9, lists the niyabas of the thughur and 'awasim and adjoining lands: eight along the Syrian march (Malatya, Dabragi (Diwrigi), Daranda, Abulustayn (Elbistan), Ayyas, Tarsus and Adhana, Sirfandakar and Sis) and three in the Mesopotamian lands to the east of the upper Euphrates (al-Bira, Kal'at Dja'bar and al-Ruha or Edessa).

I will admit that the dating of the existence of a thughur region in 1317 was somewhat speculative, as all of the discussion of a Mamluk thughur seems to take place only after the absorption of Cilician Armenia. I just reasoned that any regions that lay within the classical thughur that were controlled by the Mamluks (such as Malatya) would have been considered a renewed thughur. If this is in fact inaccurate, I can remove the label from the map.

The best source I had for the cadastral survey was here. As it notes, four separate surveys were taken between 1313 and 1325 for Syria, Egypt, Tripoli and Aleppo. The divisions of Egypt according to the survey there are mentioned on pages 138-140. Unfortunately, the Syrian surveys seem to have been completely lost; there is no record of what they actually recorded. As you say, the various sources I went through tended to divide Syria into anywhere between six (Safad, Karak, Damascus, Tripoli, Hama and Aleppo) and eight (the above, plus Shawbak and Gaza) provinces.

Page 12 from the Urban life in Syria under the early Mamluks (link here) has some information on the administrative situation in Syria which I found to be useful.

The book Early Mamluk Diplomacy also has copies of two treaties (here and here) which contain very detailed (though not comprehensive) lists of Mamluk holdings in Egypt and Syria; maybe you might find these to be useful.

Hopefully this information is helpful to you. Ro4444 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than helpful. I appreciate your comments, and I hope to get started on the later Mamluk period sooner than later. Thanks for clarifying about the thughur too, and for the links. I'll try to incorporate this information to the article. As for the Urban life... book, I've known about it for a while now (it's a potentially great resource for a lot of articles), but only had snippet access to it. How did you generate that full page link? --Al Ameer (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I have access to a physical copy of the Urban life book, so I knew which phrases to search for in snippet view. If there any particular pages you want from that book, I'd be happy to scan them and send them. Ro4444 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ro, I decided to start a draft page about the administrative divisions of the Mamluk sultanate. Whenever you have the chance, could you scan pages 11 and 13–15 (you already provided p. 12 above) from the Urban life book and link them here? Those pages will be very useful for basic info about the Syrian provinces. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Al Ameer son, I'll try and get you the pages by tomorrow. Ro4444 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Al Ameer son, here you go. I apologize for the time it took and for the low quality of the scans, but hopefully they help you with your work. Ro4444 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ro4444 :)! - I'm kinda curious, what is the name the of the program(s) you use to make those excellent maps of yours? [3] [4] --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey HistoryofIran! Thanks, glad you like them. I use Adobe Photoshop CS6 to create them. Ro4444 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate :D --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ro, I want to start expanding the Burji period of the Mamluk Sultanate, but I'm having an issue with sources. I was curious if you owned or had full access to Carl Petry's The Cambridge History of Egypt, Volume 1, particularly the chapter "The regime of the Circassian Mamluks" written by Jean-Claude Garcin that begins on page 290. If so, would you be able to scan the pages 290-308? The first couple pages discuss what Garcin calls the "four major phases" of the Burji period which will give me a good frame of reference to outline the Burji section of the Mamluks article. Interestingly, he also mentions that the first Burji sultan, Barquq, divided Egypt into three provinces (niyabas) in the way of Syria's administrative division, so I'd love to explore that a bit. Unfortunately, I only have limited access with google books. Sorry for any inconvenience. I'm also going to make a request at the resource exchange page in case you don't have access to Petry either. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ro, our friend Cplakidas noticed my request and has sent me a link to a full copy of Petry's book. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Al Ameer, glad you were able to get access.Ro4444 (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Central Wharf (Boston), Ro4444!

Wikipedia editor Jodamaster just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great article!

To reply, leave a comment on Jodamaster's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks for creating Muhammad ibn Nafi', Ro4444!

Wikipedia editor Damibaru just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good! However, I added the stub category, while the article is quite short. Cheers!

To reply, leave a comment on Damibaru's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hello dear Ro4444. I was reading the article Buyid dynasty until I saw your great map there. Truly, the map that you've created is amazing. I also saw some of your other uploads and those were also really good. I'm actually so interested in making maps and I really like to know that how do you make the topographic background of your maps? (like:Buyids, Ayyubids, Hamdanids, and Tulunids). I saw the description of your files and you've said that you make it from Demis.nl . I went to that website and I saw their default map. So, after working on that map for awhile and cropping the section that I wanted to work on, I finally downloaded (saved) it but the quality of it was really bad and poor compare to the background of your maps. If it is possible would you please help me about this issue. This is really important for me so I would be really thankful if you help me with that. Thank you. Ali 22:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ali,

Thanks for the kind words regarding my maps, I'm glad you like them! For the Ayyubid, Buyid and Hamdanid maps, the background topography was taken from here. These are handy to use since they have a conversion rate of 60 pixels for every one degree of latitude or longitude, making it easy to plot the coordinates of cities and other localities on them.

If you want to download maps from the demis website directly, the level of detail you will get depends on your ratio of number of pixels per degree of latitude and longitude, with a higher ratio yielding better detail. To show two examples:

http://www2.demis.nl/worldmap/wms.asp?Service=WMS&Version=1.1.0&Request=GetMap&BBox=20,35,30,45&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&Width=1200&Height=1200&Layers=Bathymetry,Topography,Hillshading,Waterbodies,Coastlines,Rivers,Streams&Format=image/gif

http://www2.demis.nl/worldmap/wms.asp?Service=WMS&Version=1.1.0&Request=GetMap&BBox=10,25,30,45&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&Width=1200&Height=1200&Layers=Bathymetry,Topography,Hillshading,Waterbodies,Coastlines,Rivers,Streams&Format=image/gif

The first map is 1200x1200 pixels and spans 10 degrees of both latitude and longitude, with the bottom left located at 35° N 20° E and the top right at 45° N 30° E. The second map is also 1200x1200 pixels, but spans 20 degrees of latitude and longitude, with the bottom left located at 25° N 10° E and the top right at 45° N 30° E. As you can see, the first map has a high level of detail, since the pixel:degree ratio is 120:1, while the second map has significantly less detail, since its pixel:degree ratio is only 60:1.

I hope this answers your question, let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Ro4444 (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ro4444: Wow! Thank you for the answer. The only problem that I just have now is actually how can I give the ratio of number of pixels per degree of latitude and longitude? I mean, when I go the world map page (http://www2.demis.nl/worldmap/mapper.asp), I don't know where should I put the values. Can you please help me with that? Thank you so much! Ali 19:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as you can see in this picture the topographic features are too harsh and rough compare to your files. Is this happened because of pixel:degree ratio is too low? Ali 19:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. Yes, the area that you are looking at is too large compared to the amount of pixels of the image, so you're getting a low detail version only. If you zoomed in more you'd get more detail, but the image might not cover the entire area you want then. Due to the website's size limits, it's usually not possible to download a map with a high level of detail as a single image if your desired area covers more than a couple degrees of latitude and longitude. Whenever I want a high detail map, I'll therefore download multiple map images that collectively cover the entire area I want, and then combine those downloads into a single image file using Photoshop or MSPaint. Hence if I wanted a map that covered the entire longitude between 0 and 45 degrees east, and the latitude between 4 and 10 degrees north, with a pixel:degree ratio of 120:1, I might run three images and them combine them later, like this:

http://www2.demis.nl/worldmap/wms.asp?Service=WMS&Version=1.1.0&Request=GetMap&BBox=0,4,15,10&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&Width=1800&Height=720&Layers=Bathymetry,Topography,Hillshading,Waterbodies,Coastlines,Rivers,Streams&Format=image/gif

http://www2.demis.nl/worldmap/wms.asp?Service=WMS&Version=1.1.0&Request=GetMap&BBox=15,4,30,10&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&Width=1800&Height=720&Layers=Bathymetry,Topography,Hillshading,Waterbodies,Coastlines,Rivers,Streams&Format=image/gif

http://www2.demis.nl/worldmap/wms.asp?Service=WMS&Version=1.1.0&Request=GetMap&BBox=30,4,45,10&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&Width=1800&Height=720&Layers=Bathymetry,Topography,Hillshading,Waterbodies,Coastlines,Rivers,Streams&Format=image/gif

As to the interface you're using, I don't know how to set the ratio on that, which is why I prefer to download maps by manually editing the direct image URL. You can control the amount of detail you get by editing the bolded portions of the links above. Ro4444 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely amazing! Thank you so much. I truly never expected to get this great answer ,at the beginning, when I asked you about your maps. Thank you so much for your time and awesome answers that you gave me. Honestly, the maps that you've created are the best and most detailed maps on the entire Wikipedia. Hope you keep doing it. Again thank you sooooo much and have great day! Ali 01:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again it is me again 😂! Just wondered for the Ayyubids about how many images did you set beside each others? Ali 01:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the delayed response. I took four panels from the map here rather than the website directly, namely images N0E0, N30E0, N0E30, and N30E30.

Glad to answer your questions, and thanks again for the compliments; I'm always happy to hear whenever someone likes my maps, though they're far from the best on Wikipedia :P. Hopefully all of this helps with whatever you're working on. Ro4444 (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atsiz ibn Uvaq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine. 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) 09:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ro4444. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ro4444. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

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

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

Hi, I'm TonyBallioni. Ro4444, thanks for creating 'Abdallah ibn Ghaniya!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for contributing this article. It could be made a bit more readable by breaking up the body into different sections.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday July 16, 1-5pm: New England Wiknic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" at John F. Kennedy Park, near Harvard Square, Cambridge, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday July 16 New England Wiknic (also on Facebook) 1–5pm - come by any time! Look for us by the Wikipedia / Wikimedia banner! We hope to see you there! --Phoebe (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hi there! Long time no see! I hope everything is well with you and you can return to editing soon! Best of wishes, Constantine ✍ 19:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Constantine! Yeah it's been a while, glad to see you're still around. Hopefully you're doing good as well. I've had a lot going on as of late but I'd like to contribute here and there when I can. Thanks for the welcome back! Ro4444 (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back and active! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Ro4444. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

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

Greetings,

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

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

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

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

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ro4444. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Long time no see, and I hope you are doing well! I am currently in a "Qarmatian phase", and am writing up the likes of Abu Sa'id al-Jannabi and his descendants. If/when you have time, could you please make one of your maps for Bahrayn/Yamama and/or the wider Persian Gulf region? It would be a great benefit for these articles. No hurry though, whenever you have time. Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 14:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Hi Constantine! Good to hear from you, hope you're doing well also. I'd be happy to take a crack at a map, although this isn't the easiest region to work on. Let me take some time to work on it. In any case, I'm glad to hear about the new content, look forward to it. Ro4444 (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, no hurry, but I am glad that you're on it. Expect more on the Qarmatians and Fatimids over the next months :). Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 20:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Hey Constantine - here you go. Let me know if there's anything you'd like to see added. Happy holidays! Ro4444 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Ro4444, that's a nice Christmas present! Given that I am not really familiar with the area, it looks OK. If I should hit upon a major locality that is omitted, I'll let you know. Best wishes for the holiday season! Constantine ✍ 19:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only one thing that hit me just now: could you paint the large blue areas in the interior some other colour? I assume they are not lakes ;), but they are likely to confuse people. Constantine ✍ 19:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, thanks for your review of al-Mu'tasim. The next caliphal bio in the pipeline for FA is al-Mu'tadid, if and when you have time and/or are in the mood, I'd love to have some feedback from you (and anything you feel is missing or any additional sources I could use, for instance I have not been able to find much about his secondary concubines and sons, not even how many there were...). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: No problem! Just uploaded a new file to get rid of the sand dunes appearing as lakes, hopefully that looks better. I'll be sure to take a read of the al-Mu'tadid article and let you know if I see anything that can be improved. Ro4444 (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello Ro4444, you don't happen to have a blank/non-green version of this impressive piece of work [5]? Would appreciate it, since the Sasanian Empire is in badly need of a better map, which I want to create, but I lack a proper background to do it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HistoryofIran: - I've uploaded the original SVG version here, with the green and name layers set to hidden. Look forward to seeing the new map! Ro4444 (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Ro4444, hope you are doing well in these hard times! Unfortunately my computer got a virus a few months ago and I lost everything, including the file you uploaded. Could I trouble you for a SVG version of the original once more? --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HistoryofIran: - Thanks, hope you've been doing well also. That's a bummer about the virus. Here's the file again - to get rid of the green, you can either hide or delete the "Caliphate Territory" layer. Let me know if you have any problems with downloading. Ro4444 (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ro, if you have the time and energy, would you mind making a map showing the Mirdasid emirate of Syria and the Jazira? I've nominated an article you created in 2007, Salih ibn Mirdas, for FA and it's sorely missing a map. Under Salih, the Mirdasids actually reached their territorial zenith, controlling the Euphrates valley from al-Rahba in the southeast to Manbij in the northwest, Aleppo and its greater hinterland (incl. Maarrat Misrin and Ma'arrat al-Nu'man) and a north-south line of interior towns starting from Raphanea through Homs, Hisn Ibn Akkar and Baalbek before finally jutting out west to Sidon along the Mediterranean. Please let me know if you'd be willing to take this up. If you do, I can help with the information, including the constellation of tribes and states surrounding the emirate. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Al Ameer son: - I'd be happy to take a go at this if my schedule permits. Can I take a week or two and let you know if I feel i have enough to move forward?

Also appreciate the offer for info - I may need to take you up on that. Ro4444 (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ro4444, a week or two should be fine. I’ve added a very basic preliminary map as a temporary placeholder, per a recommendation by Cplakidas in the FAC review. Within the next few days, I’ll compile and provide you the necessary information and sources detailing the political map of Syria and the western Jazira during Salih’s Aleppine emirate, ca. 1024–1029. If you decide to create the map, it will serve as a useful reference. —Al Ameer (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you are on it, Ro4444. I can also help with the Byzantine boundaries, since I've got Honigmann's Ostgrenze that is pretty detailed. Constantine ✍ 22:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: & @Cplakidas: - I'd certainly appreciate any information either of you can provide, particularly on the placement of the tribes and the exact delineation of the Mirdasid-Byzantine border. I did make a preliminary run at trying to determine political borders for the map (places colored black I couldn't find any information on). For the Mirdasid borders in particular, I had a couple of questions I was hoping to get help on:

1. Al-Raqqah - I was surprised to see that this was included in their possessions, since Numayrid possession of the city is attested to both before and after 1024 (Rice, Medieval Harran, pp. 74-79). Do you have any details about the Numayrids losing/retaking it?

2. Tadmur - Any information on who was controlling this at the time?

Anyway, I hadn't realized how far along you were in the process (great expansion by the way). I'll dedicate some time to this over the weekend. Ro4444 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. I’ll get back to you when I’m in front of my office computer, where I have full access to the sources I used for the articles on the Numayrids, Mirdasids and al-Dizbari. It was not strange for Raqqa to frequently switch hands between the Numayrids and the Mirdasids in the 11th century. The Numayrid Waththab ibn Sabiq captured it in 1007. When he died in 1019, the Numayrids lost control of Harran and it wouldn’t be surprising if they lost Raqqa as well. In any case, Bianquis in his article on the “Mirdas, Banu” writes Salih captured Raqqa and Rafiqa in 1022. I will double check this. This of course doesn’t mean Salih captured it from the Numayrids, the two tribes appear to be close allies at the time. The tug-of-war for Raqqa between them became more intense in the late 1030s–late 1050s.

2. Sources that I’ve come across are not precise when it comes to Palmyra itself. Tribally speaking, the Palmyrene steppe had been a stronghold of the Banu Kalb at least since the Umayyad era. However, Kennedy notes that Banu Kilab drove them out of this region and they became mostly concentrated in the environs of Damascus thereafter. Again, I’ll be back with precise info and sources. Attar-Aram syria might have something on this.

3. Thanks for getting started on this, it’s much appreciated. I’ll give you more details, particularly about the tribes, this week. Al Ameer (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Palmyra was not really important during this time and I could not find any source mentioning it directly. What I could find was this book الكلبيون واحفادهم الشرارات: The Kalb and their shining decendants. In one paragraph it mentions: "And they were Banu Munqid, from Kalb's Kenana, a large family who were with the Tannoukhdis in Aleppo. During Saye-al-Dawla's rule, battles took place between Saif al-Dawla and the Kalb in Palmyra and the Euphrates coasts, where many Kalb were killed. But they regained their importance during the time of Salih al-Merdasi al-Aqili, who was king of Aleppo, who gave the family the village of Shizar on the west bank of the river Al-Assi."

So we know that the Hamdanid controlled Palmyra, and that the Kalb only gained some importance during the Mirdasid, and under their rule. The Mirdasid succeeded the Hamdanid and controlled their land, so it's safe to say that they controlled Palmyra, but I have no source that directly state this. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to both, I've taken the opportunity to get my sources down and examine the exact Byzantine border in the late 10th to 11th centuries in a somewhat more systematic manner, starting with 969 when it was effectively established. I've already rewritten the Treaty of Safar article, and will start writing up a sandbox article as well. For a rough estimate, however, I'd say that the line mentioned at the Treaty of Safar article, plus the gains of Basil II (notably Shayzar), were the borderline of 1025. Still looking for a good base map for northern Syria to draw it on. Constantine ✍ 17:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(1). I agree with Constantine about the Byzantine/Arab borders. Salih also controlled Hisn Ibn Akkar and Rafaniyya (Raphanea), which might help you with border delineation.

(2). For tribal placement, Hugh N. Kennedy notes in Prophet and Age of the Caliphate that Sayf al-Dawla's brutal suppression of the Arab tribal rebellion in 955 dramatically "altered the nomad geography of the Syrian steppe" (Kennedy p. 274): While at the beginning of the 10th century, the desert region west of Kufa and between Palymra and Damascus was "dominated by the powerful Kalb tribe" (Kennedy p. 286)/"the Kalb, held sway ... over the Rahba-Tadmur-Hims-Damascus route" (Bianquis p. 115), following Sayf's suppression, the "Kalb were forced to move away from their traditional centres around Homs to the Jawlan (Golan) further in the south. The Kilab, on the other hand, were allowed to expand south into the old Kalb lands". (Kennedy p. 274) Biaquis notes that at the beginning of the 10th-century, "the Kilab held the Syrian steppe lying between the loop of the Euphrates and the Aleppo-Kinnasrin-Hamat-Hims highway". (Bianquis p. 115) By 1023–25, Kennedy notes "the growing power of the Banu Kalb in the Damascus area", (Kennedy p. 336), though the Kalb "never established themselves in Damascus" (Kennedy p. 304). Bianquis notes that they had been repelled by the city's Fatimid and local defenders (Bianquis p. 117). For the 1024 map, I'd say it would be safe to place the Banu Kalb in the area stretching between the northeastern environs of Damascus southward to the Jawlan/Hawran. For the Banu Kilab, as a whole, they seem to dominate a much wider region of the Syrian steppe, extending from the region between Homs northward into the Jund Qinnasrin and Diyar Mudar, or between Jund Qinnasrin eastward into the Diyar Mudar. The Tayy should be placed in the area of Transjordan (al-Balqa), southward into al-Sharat (if its shown on the map), stretching eastward into northern Arabia (Jabal Tayy if its shown on the map). The Kinana branch of the Kalb, whose preeminent clan was the Banu Munqidh, were present in a much smaller area immediately east of Byzantine Shayzar in the Orontes Valley (Kafartab) northwest of Hama. Salih bestowed on them this area as a fief. As for the Taghlib, Kennedy notes after the early stages of Hamdanid rule, the tribe "disappeared into obscurity" (Kennedy p. 283) so no place for them on the map. I cannot find enough information about the Qushayr. In any case, they did not wield the strength boasted by their Kilabi, Numayri and Uqayli tribal relatives. Likewise, previously important tribes such as the Tanukh, Judham and Lakhm also disappeared from Syria's political map during the early Abbasid period. (Kennedy p. 283) Really, the only tribes that should be indicated on the Syro-Jaziran map of 1024 are the Kilab, Kalb, Numayr, Tayy and Uqayl.

(3). On the EI2 article on Raqqa (p. 413), it is stated "After the Hamdanids there followed a century of turmoil, when the governorship of al-Rakka was fought over by the Arab tribal dynasties of the Numayrids, the Mirdasids and the Ukaylids (described in great detail by Ibn Shaddad, iii/1, 74-8)." Bianquis notes that by 1022, Salih controlled "Rahba, Rakka, Balis, Manbidj and Rafaniyya". (Bianquis 116) I think its safe to say Raqqa was controlled by Salih in 1024. For a long time, I've tried without luck to find out who controlled Hama and Salamiyya during this time period. As part of Jund Hims, they may have naturally become part of the Mirdasid realm under Salih. Azaz and Qinnasrin are frequently mentioned as part of the Kilabi/Mirdasid realm in Bianquis's article, Zakkar notes that Qinnasrin or its vicinity was the home of Salih's clan, while Kennedy notes that Khunasira was a commercially important town dominated by the Kilab (Kennedy p. 300). The Tayy's ruling clan, the Jarrahids, controlled Ramla and much of southern and central interior Palestine in 1024. Throughout their history in Syria, the Fatimids prioritized their control of Syria's port cities. Nothing indicates they lost control of any of them, including Qaysariya (Caesarea), Akka (Acre), Jubayl (Byblos) and Tarabulus (Tripoli) during the Jarrahid interregnums, other than the aforementioned Sidon (Sayda), which was captured by Salih ibn Mirdas. The Fatimids also continued to hold the city of Damascus and apparently Tabariyya (Tiberias) and Jerusalem. I think the map should be expanded into south Palestine/Sinai borders, if feasible. No need to mention the towns of Lajjun, Baysan, Qadas and Kamid—their relevance to this period is not apparent in the sources. On the other hand, I think Azaz and Khunasira should be added.

Hope the above information isn't too garbled, please let me know if you need clarifications or any further information. Thanks again ;) --Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Cplakidas signs his comments with Constantine, but is not Constantine. Referencing Constantine spams my notifications. --Constantine (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son:, @Attar-Aram syria: & @Cplakidas: - Thanks a lot to all three of you for your replies! This is quite a lot of helpful information. Constantine, thanks also for updating the Treaty of Safar article, that really narrowed down where the border should be there.

Al Ameer, I agree with a lot of your recommendations here and will be updating accordingly. I should have something up by no later than the end of this week.Ro4444 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: - I know this took a bit longer than I thought, but here you go. Feel free to let me know if there's anything you think needs to be corrected. Ro4444 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done sir! The map looks great. Your tedious work is highly appreciated. I’ve been seeking one like this for a long time and will begin adding it to the relevant articles. And it comes just in time as Salih ibn Mirdas has not been featured on the main page yet. As a heads up, you will be hearing from me again soon about the Umayyads (Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan) and Zubayrids (Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr) during the Second Fitna ;) I’m just working on gathering more information about the parties’ territorial control. Take care, and enjoy your Easter. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Al-Mu'tadid is now at FAC, and the question was raised what the sources of Iraq Ninth Century.png are. Could you please add them to the file description? Thanks a lot! Constantine ✍ 10:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Cplakidas: - Good to see it's advancing. I just added some references as requested, hope that works. Ro4444 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ro4444. I'm coming to you with a major map request, but it may be a period of time in which you're well-versed. It's a map of the caliphate at the time of the Second Muslim Civil War, specifically in 685–87. I plan on nominating Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan for FAC this week. Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr and Marwan I have recently become good articles, while thanks to the efforts of AhmadLX, al-Mukhtar al-Thaqafi has recently become a Featured article. The aforementioned leaders were the major political players during the civil war. What's been sorely missing from their articles and the main article itself is an adequate map of the political scene in SW Asia and North Africa during this time. If you are up for it, I would be forever grateful if you took a stab at such a map. As always, I would gladly help with information and sources. The scope of the map, set in the year 686/87, would encompass the region between Ifriqiya in the west to Khurasan and Sistan in the east. I have a rough outline here. I assume Cplakidas has information on the Byzantine/Arab boundaries during this period as well. I know it's a major undertaking, but you have the most capable hands. Let me know if your schedule would allow it. Cheers, --Al Ameer (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Al Ameer son: - Hope all's well with you. Just wanted to apologize for taking so long in getting back to you. Unfortunately I've been too busy to do much editing here as of late; for the time being I'm probably not going to be doing much more other than minor article maintenance. If I gain some more time in the future and this request is still open I'd be happy to help on it. In any case, congrats on getting Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan to featured status - it's great to see the articles of some of these historic personalities finally getting the effort and attention they deserve. Ro4444 (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None necessary ;) I figured you might be rather strained for time and effort here. This map would be an enormous undertaking I would imagine. I'll try my luck and submit a request to the map builders we have here. Hope to see you editing more often. Regards --Al Ameer (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

== Just copy the source code and paste it on the talk page of the user you wish to invite.

This user has been invited WikiProject Prussia please consider checking us out.

==

Kaiser Kitkat (talk)

Hi Ro4444 and a happy holiday season to you! I've decided to make some maps for use in articles on the early caliphates, as I am tired of seeing 19th-century maps reused ad nauseam. I've started by making a first attempt to draw the somewhat real borders of the Umayyad caliphate in 740 here. I intend to make a similar one for major milestones (661, 715, 809, 861, 892, 908, 946, 969) on the same basemap as 740 and at roughly the same level of detail, since anything more tends to be too much for the average reader. At the same time, I want them to be as accurate as possible, and would love it if you could give a hand with your knowledge and sources. I will upload some first drafts hopefully quickly, would you mind having a look as I go along (or even, dare I hope, undertake some yourself)? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Constantine - Happy Holidays to you too! This looks like a great project and I'd be more than willing to give whatever help I can.

If you're looking for observations on the 740 map specifically, I have two small ones: 1) Per EI2, Kandahar wasn't a very prominent town during this period, and 2) control over the Ferghana region wasn't that firm yet. These maps look like they're meant to be broad overviews though, so maybe that's getting mired in the details.

Let me know as more of these are completed! Ro4444 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Tabaristan should be white Ro4444 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks. Actually, I am thinking about doing it in a more comprehensive manner, with maps of differing level of detail, starting with very detailed (like the one you have created for the Abbasid Caliphate in 788) with all major settlements and provinces, to intermediate (provinces and main cities) to overview maps of the level of detail of the one linked above. I need to find/generate a suitable vector-based basemap, however, probably using a GIS tool.

On the 740 map, I've removed Kandahar. Re Ferghana and Tabaristan, in both cases they could be claimed to be part of the Muslim caliphate, even if in the form of vassal rulers. Especially re Tabaristan, I thought about removing it (which is why I added the label in the first place), but although it was de facto independent, but its rulers did recognize the overlordship of the caliph, just a , for example, the Christian princes in Transcaucasia or the various tribes in Arran and Adharbayjan. At this level of detail, I don't want to introduce extra colorings for vassal states etc, this would be a matter for the more detailed versions. Constantine ✍ 14:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. For things like that I guess it makes sense depending on your criteria for inclusion. In any case, hope to see more maps soon, and I'd be interested to see what you can find in terms of a workable vector-based template as well. Cheers, Ro4444 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

Hello, Ro4444

Thank you for creating Muhammad ibn Zuhayr al-Azdi.

User:Gazal world, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating this article. Please add reference for the first sentence of the article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Gazal world}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Gazal world (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, feel free to add your articles to this! We don't have many Middle Eastern articles coming in! Keep up the good work!† Encyclopædius 21:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ro4444

Thank you for creating Assamah ibn Amr al-Ma'afiri.

User:Gazal world, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good work. Please don't forget to add relevant Wikiproject tags on the talk page of the article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Gazal world}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Gazal world (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I recall that you did some excellent research about early streetcars in Boston. I'm trying to find and verify some dates about lines that became part of the Green Line, and I was wondering if you might be able to help. (Thus far, I'm working primarily off Tremont Street Subway: A Century of Service (Clarke) and the Boston Globe archives.)

• When the West Roxbury Railroad opened for service between Jamaica Plain and Roxbury Crossing. I've seen claims between 1857 and 1859.
• When the extension on Washington Street between Brookline Village and Park Street (Brookline) opened - I know it was between 1886 and 1891.
• When the tracks on Huntington Avenue (still Tremont Street west of Brigham Circle until 1895) were electrified. Clarke says 1893, which makes sense with other sources that indicate electric service on the above-mentioned Washington Street tracks in August 1894, but construction between Brigham Circle and Gainsborough was approved in October 1894. Perhaps the 1893 electrification was only west of Brigham Circle, and the 1894 construction was replacing circa-1883 horsecar tracks with new electric tracks?
• The opening date of the Jamaica Plain Carhouse-Forest Hills segment - Clarke gives May 17, 1902, but I cannot confirm this.
• When Jamaica Plain-South Huntington-subway service was extended to Forest Hills. Clarke says 1915, but I found a newspaper article from October 1915 indicating the terminal was still Jamaica Plain Carhouse. (Confusingly, the service was still called Jamaica Plain even after 1924, by which time I'm sure it went to Arborway.)
• When the tracks on Comm Ave/Brighton Ave were opened. One source indicates Kenmore-Cottage Farm in 1894, Cottage Farm-Brighton Ave (later Packard's Corner) in 1895, and the Brighton Ave segment to Union Square in 1896, but I can't confirm this.

No pressure, of course - if you don't have the sources or this doesn't interest you, no pressure. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi.1415926535 - I can certainly do some digging this week on these. I'm hardly an expert on historic route changes and you seem to be hitting a lot of the same sources that I would, but I'm happy to take a stab at it.

One question off the bat:

*When Jamaica Plain-South Huntington-subway service was extended to Forest Hills. Clarke says 1915, but I found a newspaper article from October 1915 indicating the terminal was still Jamaica Plain Carhouse. (Confusingly, the service was still called Jamaica Plain even after 1924, by which time I'm sure it went to Arborway.) - Is the article reference in regards to the October 2nd route changes? If so, it sounds like this change resulted in service between Forest Hills and Jamaica Plains CHs being established, while the previous service between the Hyde Park Ave and JP CHs was discontinued. The Boston Post article provides a bit more clarity on this than the blurb in the Globe (let me know if you have trouble accessing). The 1914-1915 BERy maps also suggest that a portion of the Hyde Park Ave tracks near Forest Hills were downgraded(?) to single track at that time, which might be related to the change (haven't verified that this work was actually done though).

Also, thanks for your good edits on the West End article - definitely improves that section. Ro4444 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, looks like you were the one who uploaded the BERy maps...seems like you're way ahead of me here :p Ro4444 (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My BPL card is sadly expired, so I can't see the Post article. My understanding of the 10/2/1915 change from the Globe article is that the Hyde Park-Forest Hills-JP line was cut to Forest Hills (this is now the 32), while the Charles River-Forest Hills line (now the 36) was extended to JP in its place. The Globe article doesn't seem to indicate anything about extending the South Huntington line from JP to Forest Hills, though. If it's helpful at all, a book I have indicates that 1907 routes included JP-Park Street via South Huntington, JP-Dudley via Centre, SP-Sullivan via Centre and Washington, and Forest Hills-Park Street via Centre, Columbus, and Mass Ave. (Unfortunately, it only lists routes that entered the subway or touched the El, so routes from the south that terminated at JP aren't mentioned.)

I think the single track indicated near Forest Hills is a sort of one-way pair - from later track maps, it looks like southbound Hyde Park Ave cars used Washington and then switched over on 'lower' Walk Hill Street, while northbounds used Hyde Park. Might have something to do with construction of the elevated shops there around that time?

Re other segments I mentioned above: I found a firm date for the West Roxbury Railroad. My best guess with the Huntington electrification is that 4/4/1894 electrified the full length of Huntington Avenue, the Cypress Street branch, the Washington Street branch in Brookline, and the Brigham Circle-Roxbury Crossing tracks. The October 1894 city approval is probably for the relocation into the median reservation, which seems to have been constructed in the mid-1890s.

And haha yep, I've gone on map upload binges a few times. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pi.1415926535 - I've uploaded a copy of the Post page here (article's on the top left of page). The way I'm understanding this, the change resulted in an extension of service along the "Charles River to Forest Hills" line up to Jamaica Plain CH & the South Huntington Line, albeit with a transfer at JP CH. I'm assuming the "Charles to FH" route refers to the streetcar-level service coming down Washington St from the direction of Charlestown and am unsure how that syncs with the current route of the 36, but again I'm not very familiar with this topic so feel free to ignore me if I'm off base here. Scratch that, that's me not knowing what I'm talking about. My error. So it sounds like cars were coming up from the Charles River (to the west, aka the 36) to Forest Hills up to JP CH, but a transfer was still required at the latter location.

Switching gears for a sec - The opening date of the Jamaica Plain Carhouse-Forest Hills segment - Clarke gives May 17, 1902, but I cannot confirm this. - I couldn't directly verify this either. The West End Street Railway received approval for its 201st location along South Street on 5/21/1900. It thereafter asked for several extensions to conduct work on this location, with the final extension being granted on 3/31/1902 and extending the deadline for completion to 11/01/1902. The company formally acknowledged receipt of the extension on April 14. On April 7, a Globe article mentioned that "at last" work was finally underway on the line, with rails on site and track laying scheduled for that week. I couldn't find any reference in either the Globe or the Post for a completion on May 17 or anywhere around that time, although the date seems reasonable if work had started the prior month. Maybe another newspaper noted the completion, but I don't have access to any others.

Good to hear that you're making progress on some of the other points! I'll also continue digging around to see what else I can find. Ro4444 (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Yeah, the Charles River situation is a bit confusing at first - especially since the West Medway Branch also had a Charles River station several miles away. (Incidentally, the Charles River loop is now a parking lot with rails sticking out.)

Even without confirming directly, that's extremely helpful as clear proof that the tracks were built in 1902. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Al-Layth ibn al-Fadl, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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 deleted 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. Thepesar (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Isma'il ibn Isa ibn Musa al-Hashimi, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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 deleted 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. Thepesar (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ro4444, I have no idea what Thepesar is doing or what their reasoning is, but these two articles are obviously not eligible for speedy deletion. I have removed the speedy templates. --bonadea contributions talk 10:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Bonadea: appreciate the intervention. The user adding those infoboxes is including a few bits of unsourced information, but I'm at a loss as to how that justifies deleting the whole of the articles themselves. Ro4444 (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

your maps on the Mamluks, the Ayyubids, and the Sassanids are excellent!

TheCherryPanda (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conradiner family members has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buyid dynasty has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to translate your good map on Buyids (Buyids within the Middle East, ca. 970.png) but I need the plain background of the map (without text) so I could add Persian translation to it. Would you please direct me to the file on the internet? Yoosef (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chagatai_Khanate_(1490).png

The description says, that information came mostly from these two sources:

• Mirza Muhammad Haidar. The Tarikh-i-Rashidi (A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia). Translated by Edward Denison Ross, edited by N.Elias. London, 1895.
• Elias, N. Commentary. 'The Tarikh-i-Rashidi (A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia). By Mirza Muhammad Haidar. Translated by Edward Denison Ross, edited by N. Elias. London, 1895.

Aren't both the same? Gunnar (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I found you through a couple of articles you created and noticed you haven't edited in a while; I've added you to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Feel free to remove yourself if you'd rather not be there. Thank you for your contributions, and God bless you! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 11:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]