User talk:Sudsahab

Hi Sudsahab! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! RegentsPark (comment) 18:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

RegentsPark (comment) 18:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sudsahab, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Umarrizwan.ansari (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 18:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umarrizwan.ansari is my previous acc which got lost. Now i only use this sudsahab acc. i will contribute my best to wikipedia.Please dont block me Sudsahab (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. As long as you don't edit from multiple accounts, and since you've declared the old account, you're good. RegentsPark (comment) 16:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Gajapati invasion of Berar, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Imperial^[AFCND] 17:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Bahmani invasion of Orissa, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Imperial^[AFCND] 17:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Battle of Kunjpura, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sudsahab (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Etawah (1770), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Synorem (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to expand on this by saying that asking for your edit to not be removed - in the edit itself - is not helpful. Synorem (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Draft talk:Capture of Delhi (1719). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Re Packer&Tracker. I noticed that you recently removed content from Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 00:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sudsahab! Your additions to Qarachil Expedition have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see WP:RS and WP:SPS. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,But u r removing reliable sources unneccssary

Rise and Fall of The Maratha Empire 1750-1818

Sanish Nandakumar ·

is known historian of India. Sudsahab (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's a "known historian of India", yet has only published one book, and isn't even a historian? [1]. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I appreciate your efforts to add articles about sieges, such as Siege of Etawah (1770). However, please note (especially when titling articles) that the word is spelled "siege", not "seige". I usually don't come to people's talk pages about typos, but since these typos have been made in article titles, I figured it was important to let you know. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 14:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MicrobiologyMarcus was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

entire first half of the run-on Battle seciton does not cite any sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle of Moti Talab (1771) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sudsahab! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 21:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sudsahab! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. — Manticore 07:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Siege of Etawah (1770) 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/Siege of Etawah (1770) 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.

Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sudsahab, don't remove the unsigned template from your comment. Its non constructive to add a link to your userpage instead of a signature.Imperial^[AFCND] 11:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, are you Manik from instagram? And were .Manik69, ManikSharma8969 and Umarrizwan.ansari your previous accounts got lost? Imperial^[AFCND] 16:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, i am not manik and im not doing any socket puppetry so pls stop annoying me period Sudsahab (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that I thought you were manik from Instagram. Imperial^[AFCND] 16:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sudsahab, have you ever shared your articles in any of the platforms other than Wikipedia?Imperial^[AFCND] 16:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting to look like fishing, please stop. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a reason. How can we allow meatpuppetry? I have seen multiple newly created accounts editing in support of Sudsahab even in draft articles. I thought it was a coincidence but happened multiple times. I can provide the evidences for multiple incidents if you wish. Of this account and his early account named @Umarrizwan.ansari. Following the instagram lead I got from a user, I came to understand that there is a vast group acting behind all these. @HistoryofIran made his effort and banned multiple accounts by proving this. So please be aware of the situation. Imperial^[AFCND] 16:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is allowed to remove unsigned templates, they don't do anything anyways. While I agree there is something fishy ongoing, interrogating users is not the way. If there are concerns (and at least somewhat definitive proof), they should be taken WP:ANI, WP:SPI or some other place. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do it. Thanks. Imperial^[AFCND] 16:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Gajapati invasion of Bidar instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has information that is not in the article and should be added to the article. Please compare and combine the draft and the article. You may ask for advice about comparing and combining a draft and an article at the Teahouse.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gajapati invasion of Bidar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Siege of Gurumkonda (1770), was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. 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. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 02:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Delhi (1760), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Beland (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Capture of Delhi (1719). Thanks! microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 21:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Moti Talab (1771), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CoconutOctopus was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Still missing correct sections and formatting

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Capture of Delhi (1719) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CoconutOctopus talk 16:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Chandighat (1771) 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/Battle of Chandighat (1771) 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.

Imperial^[AFCND] 11:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hy fellow mate 👋. Can you create a further campaign of Krishnadevraya on his conquest of Orrisa against Gajapati Kingdom Mahratta.op (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Sudsahab (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,i cant Sudsahab (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gupta-Saka Wars, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spinster300 (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinster300, hello. Please consider double checking before moving a WP:MILHIST related articles. One of the articles you recently accepted through AFC, doesn't pass WP:GNG, nor any WP:RS calls it by the name "Battle of Bahraich". I've initiated an AFD, and always check whether if any historian, or any WP:RS calls any military conflicts as "Battle of X", "Siege of X" or "X-Y War". Thanks. Imperial^[AFCND] 13:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ImperialAficionado, thank you so much for this notice. I decided to participate in WP:MILHIST articles today after many years. It looks like it is time for me to brush up before I continue. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Battle of Bahraich (1034) 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/Battle of Bahraich (1034) 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.

Imperial^[AFCND] 13:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamani-Vijayanagara War (1418–1420), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Farrukhnagar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lalitaditya Muktapida. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Imperial^[AFCND] 12:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the Fictional flags u Added in the Articles of Battle of Pratapgarh, etc DeepstoneV (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, its seems more like a personal attack onto me. If you have problem with the so called 'Fictional map' please contact the file uploader. Sudsahab (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you may not know what WP:PA means. I strongly suggest you to remove that flags with no sourcing. Let me know from where you got such a depiction of flag, and what is the source for that. As long as I can't view any kind of source attached to it in commons. DeepstoneV (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what WP:PA means, and if u want to remove that flag so go on and remove it. I found the flag on Google so I posted it and half of the flags are own work and unsourced. Thanku Sudsahab (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sudsahab I'm very keen to expand Shivaji's Southern Campaign as it needs a little bit of cohesion, copy editing and more content, you can help. WhiteReaperPM (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Pratapgarh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afzal Khan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jeromeenriquez was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle of Umbarkhind and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jeromeenriquez (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Take care. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Prince Salim's Invasion of Mewar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, this was indeed an amateurish move, Instead of discussing with me on the article's talk page you chose to put this template. Sudsahab (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3rr is always a rule. I can clearly see it has been three times that the result section has been changed recently. Added this to avoid further edit warring. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Siege of Kalinjar. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Imperial^[AFCND] 19:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe reverting disruptive edits of other users is harsh than this [2] just keep your keyboard shut for sometime. Sudsahab (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sudsahab and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• The project Academy has lots of useful information about editing and writing military history articles. One very useful introductory course to get you started is Writing a good stub.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

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! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is "A History of Jaipur" not reliable? I have already discussed that it doesn't come under WP:RAJ as it was completed after the death of Sarkar. Ranadhira (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look the thing is the author Jadunath Sarkar is himself controversial (as we know he was a British knighted historian) so his works are untenable to be used in Wikipedia articles. You can ask/research more about this topic at RSN. Sudsahab (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit on the Vijayanagara Empire article because you didn't check the talk page and didn't understand the context before disrupting. Please familiarize yourself with the background before making edits. DeepstoneV (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sudsahab. Thank you for your work on Battle of Kunjpura. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sudsahab. Thank you for your work on Siege of Lohkot (1015). Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sudsahab. Thank you for your work on Krishnadevaraya's Bahamani Expedition. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sudsahab. Thank you for your work on Siege of Baghdad (1625-1626). Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sudsahab. Thank you for your work on Battle of Tiruvadi. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sudsahab and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• The project Academy has lots of useful information about editing and writing military history articles. One very useful introductory course to get you started is Writing a good stub.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.

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! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

🤝 Sudsahab (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PadFoot2008 16:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

This must be an error cause [3] I had already disclosed my lost account. What I failed to acknowledge is my first Wikipedia account Krishna57edits which was banned for 2 weeks [4] I shouldn't had evaded that block. Other than this I have no connection to any of the accounts that was suspected here [5] I have acknowledged my both accounts (one which was lost and the one which was banned for 2 weeks) therefore I am expressing my sincere remorse and regret for my involvement in sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. I acknowledge that my actions have violated Wikipedia's policies and undermined the integrity of the platform. I take full responsibility for my behavior and understand the serious consequences of engaging in such deceptive practices. :I assure you that I am committed to rectifying my mistakes and making amends for the damage I have caused. I pledge to adhere strictly to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines moving forward and to contribute constructively and transparently to the community. I have contributed to Wikipedia by creating many Wikipedia pages that are notable and participated in fruitful discussion to build a consensus so please give me a last chance to repent and change myself. I apologize once again for my misconduct and assure you that I am fully committed to earning back the trust and respect of the Wikipedia community through my future conduct.Sudsahab (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per long discussion below. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2024 (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.

Sudsahab (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird: your Krishna account logged in on April 9, one minute before you logged in with this account. Also, your edits are remarkably similar to those of Thewikiuser1999. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It was done when I was logging into my Sudsahab account on my phone in which the Krishna account was already logged in, I already acknowledged that the Krishna account was my first Wikipedia account. No, we are not same Thewikiuser1999 is heavily oriented around editing a certain cast (Brahmins) whereas I haven't done any of the caste supremacist edits. Please understand that we are not the same and I swear that I don't bag more than two or three devices so you can verify it with a checkuser. Please consider unblocking me, I seek a Block exception per Last chance. Sudsahab (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry with a sock ie, User:Shakib ul hassan is clear from the edit history of Siege of Sirhind 1758, and the contributions of that user makes it clear that the socks of that user have engaged in meatpuppetry with Thewikiuser1999, Indo12122,...(long list of Indian history POV pushing sockmasters). Imperial^[AFCND] 08:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again these random users have no connection with me, I'd have already confirmed if these accounts were my socks, they may spy on me and contribute their work in my started articles. Sudsahab (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough evidence to make an ANI report, and I'm ready to share it if needed. For example, I've noticed the changes he made to your sandbox[6] [7][8], and the additions are made without any apparent plan (how does he know that you are about to create that article, with the same context he added?). It's almost as if User:Shakib ul hassan can predict your future actions and adds relevant context accordingly. What's also worrying is that this same user moved your sandbox to mainspace [9]. There have even been instances where an IP user did the same thing, although it might take some time to find the exact diff. So, it's not accurate to brush off these actions as just the work of "random users", especially since all these accounts were created around the same time, surprisingly with Arabic names. Imperial^[AFCND] 11:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Shakib ul hassan is fixing some of those disambiguation links and spelling errors, leads you to the conclusion that he can be my sock? Here [10][11][12][13] I don't see any odd. He added nothing but fixing links. Had he "predicted my future" he would have added more information/contents related to this article. He didn't predict anything the edit differences I showed just proved it and If you don't mind I want an admin to review my unblock request. Sudsahab (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies please review my utmost unblock request Sudsahab (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well you had not disclosed Krishna, not on this talk page. Let's see. You created Sudsahab on 7 October 2023, after User:Krishna57edits was blocked by Bishonen for edit warring, but didn't actually edit with that account. You created User:Umarrizwan.ansari on 10 December 2023, and started editing with that, until 19 December, and then you started editing with this account, and User:RegentsPark called you on it. (And along the way you log in with your Krishna account, and then a minute later with this account--I suppose the positive reading of that is that you realized that you shouldn't be using the Krishna account.)

All the while you are racking up warnings on these accounts for disruption of various kinds--spelling errors, citation/sourcing problems, edit warring, creation of poor stubs. Tell you what, I am going to take the positive reading here, and I will change the CU block to a regular indefinite block for all the disruption documented so well on two different talk pages, Krishna's and this one; I will ask RegentsPark and Bishonen if they could have a look at this block and your unblock request. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:ImperialAficionado, I just blocked User talk:गांधार नरेश as a CU-confirmed sock of User:Shakib ul hassan. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies! Imperial^[AFCND] 16:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god this is very confusing. There are three things I have trouble with, Drmies, all of them concerning Krishna57edits.

• 1. Why would Bbb23 tag that account as both CU-blocked and as "suspected", in one and the same edit?
• 2. Also, in the block log, you, Drmies, block Krishna57edits with a reference to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thewikiuser1999/Archive. However, that SPI does not list Krishna57edits as a sockpuppet. "Closing as the requested evidence for Krishna57edits hasn't been provided." But you're of course a CU, Drmies. Have you now checked Krishna57edits? Or what is the evidence they're a sock of Thewikiuser1999? Or did you block them because they're a sockmaster (with the socks Umarrizwan.ansari and Sudsahab)?
• 3. And furthermore, why does Sudsahab (who acknowledges that Krishna57edits is their account) say, of my two-week block of Krishna57edits, that "I shouldn't had evaded that block"? Neither of the known socks Umarrizwan.ansari and Sudsahab did evade that block, so what is this? An indication that there's yet another, never named, sock (at least one)? Bishonen | tålk 17:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Bishonen: I can't answer your last question, but the double-tagging is not unusual and is explained at the SPI. The template says precisely what it's supposed to say, that Krishna57 and Sudsahab are confirmed to each other and a suspected sock (no CU evidence) of the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bishonen, Sudsahab is often quite unclear--whether that's deception or, eh, competence is also not clear. Krishna and Sudsahab are confirmed with each other; I linked the SPI because that's how it started, really. Umarrizwan.ansari is now blocked because Sudsahab copped to it in an earlier comment here, which I hadn't seen; their data is stale. There is no technical evidence linking this account to that wikiuser account.
      I asked you to have a look (and/or RegentsPark) because I cannot judge if it's worth giving them another shot on their own merits, setting aside the socking issue, which as far as I'm concerned isn't irrelevant but also is not the most important thing. They seem to not have overlapped in a disruptive way, if I remember correctly. Is this editor, on the merits of their edits, a net positive? Thanks, and sorry for the confusion--I'm glad I'm not the only one who was a bit confused! Drmies (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The account Krishna57edits edited very cluelessly and also tendentiously. See for instance my comment here at the time of my block in October 2023. As Sudsahab, possibly they improved a little. But look at all the alerts above about deletion of their articles and non-acceptance of their drafts. Indeed, of the 14 articles they have created, 12 have been deleted.[14] Not an impressive record. But I don't feel I'm the best admin to judge their editing in general. It would be great if RegentsPark, who knows more about Sudsahab's subjects, offered a firmer opinion. However, he is travelling, and it's been a week since he last edited. Dare I ping @Abecedare:? Hmmm... well, I boldly did. Bishonen | tålk 20:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
        • @Bishonen, I apologize for the interruption. While acknowledging that my initial edits were hastily executed and lacked precision, I have since undergone a learning process and improved a lot. It is worth noting that subsequent to my block, most of the articles were redirected and deleted by an administrator [15] per WP:BANREVERT. Seeing this is disheartening, can't do anything but abide by the rules. Sudsahab (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not sure why you link to AirshipJungleman29's long CSD log, Sudsahab. What's that supposed to show? If you're implying that your articles were deleted merely for being created by a blocked user, I don't think so. The alerts above on this page say otherwise; the articles were generally deleted for poor or non-existent sourcing. Bishonen | tålk 09:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
            • PS to Drmies: sorry, I now realize Abecedare also hasn't edited for weeks. :-( Bishonen | tålk 09:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
              • Bishonen, I see now why they linked to User:AirshipJungleman29's log--they tagged the articles as creations by a sock of that Thewikiuser, but that's not what my block was about. I suppose they could have been tagged as G5 because created by Krishna, but given the account given above that wouldn't be exactly fair either. I am going to restore those; Airship, if you read over this you'll see that it's a bit more complicated, and I never confirmed this editor as a sock of Thewikiuser. Bish, maybe that changes the perspective a bit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • No worries, Drmies; I was writing a response to Sudsahab when you blocked them, saw your block notification, and assumed G5 was needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't claim that my articles were merely deleted because of WP:G5 but please understand that only 3 out of 14 articles (Siege of Etawa, Battle of Chandighat and Battle of Bahraich) of my Sudsahab account were deleted before my ban and from my Umarrizwan.ansari account I have zero track record of any deletion. I'd say that I have contributed more than disrupting Wikipedia. Sudsahab (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Like [16][17][18][19] Not only I participated in fruitful discussion but also removed non RS sources (and there are dozens of such edits), I know I have my own drawbacks and we can't be an Ideal Wikipedia editor but I'd try to be in vicinity of an Ideal editor. Sudsahab (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bishonen,@Drmies Pardon me for mentioning repeatedly. If my unblock review will take its time (which is fine). Can I prove myself by productively contributing on other WMF projects? Sudsahab (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Bishonen | tålk 20:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  Alright thanks Sudsahab (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I started reviewing Sudsahab's edits and immediately found a few problems. In this edit, for example, Sudsahab references this book but I don't see any of this material in the linked book (perhaps I'm missing something). Sudsahab also references www.esamskriti.com which is nowhere near a WP:RS and the other sources (Pletcher, Beck) are generalists rather than historians of India. I also see that they cite a raj era source in this edit, despite being aware that that's not kosher. At this point, I'm not convinced that they're a net positive for the encyclopedia. However, perhaps if they are willing to adhere to a topic ban on South Asian history, ...? RegentsPark (comment) 20:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OTOH, there's also this. Sock? RegentsPark (comment) 20:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @RegentsPark In the first edit this book can be previewed in my region (I think that is what you asked) and for the rest of the sources I'd definitely take it into my deepest consideration because I reverted those non RS sources. In the second edit too I could have removed the RAJ source instead of re-using it, however that doesn't mean I'm not net positive for Wikipedia.

  I'd give more examples for contributing to Wikipedia:

  • I have successfully started 16 out of 19 articles (two of them got B ratings) from both of my accounts [20] [21] and that is itself is the clear indication that I'm net positive, also I have did tons of edits on improving other Wikipedia articles (basically I reframed these articles) like Battle of Pratapgarh, Sack of Surat, Battle of Farrukhnagar, Battle of Raichur and Battle of Makwanpur (1763). I have my drawbacks which I accept and I can assure that I'll improve myself.

  For the sock part, see this I don't have to say much as Dermies already said there's no technical evidence. See the behavioural evidence too, the IP user couldn't even properly pronounce my username in their user edit summary. At last to @Drmies, please consider my unblock, it's been more than a week since I posted my unblock request and since then I have also contributed to Wikimedia: *File:Qarmatian Flag.png * * Sudsahab (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RegentsPark, maybe have a look at ANI, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jonharojjashi,_part_2. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. Interesting, a title that speaks volumes. After reading the ANI thread, I'm leaning toward letting things stand as they are now.RegentsPark (comment) 21:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at a diverse range of works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the "center of gravity"

Thanks for your contributions to Qarachil Expedition. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and Article appears to contain substantial original research and synth. Peacock language should be removed. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back.  // Timothy :: talk  01:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Tokyo war crimes trials

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bobby Cohn was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Battle of Umbarkhind and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two works on logistics and one on the Battle of Arnhem

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm looks at the bayou battles for Vicksburg

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sudsahab. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Qarachil Expedition, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Army divisions in the Pacific War, Nick-D on the First Indochina War

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]