User talk:Shadow. 547

Hi Shadow. 547! I noticed your contributions to Otrar Catastrophe 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! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Siege of Bamyan (1221). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Ashina Revolt. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Liberation of Khovd. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

dude i didnt even add Mongol victory🤦‍♂️ Shadow. 547 (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this and this edit, what do you not understand about MOS:MILRESULT? The relevant page was linked, instead you write yeah the result stuff did get removed because some random guy called Airshipman something like that yeah he didn’t like it and was yapping about Timurid victory should be blah blah blah. If you are simply going to edit war over this, then it suggests that a block is necessary. Mellk (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Timurid conquests and invasions. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Siege of Nishapur. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it consists of machine-generated text. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That's great, thank you so much @AirshipJungleman29! @Shadow. 547 AI has a tendency to "hallucinate" and make things up (I saw a fascinating video about a lawyer who used ChatGPT and completely destroyed his court case, the judge was really angry when they found out). It's great that you're trying to fill in gaps in Wikipedia, but so many people use this site that we have to be incredibly careful. I'd recommend rewriting the article from scratch in your own words (you can use the draft as a skeleton) and look for reliable sources, again from scratch because AI isn't good at this part. There are lots of pages to help you do this, and you can use the Teahouse if you need help! I'm learning a lot about copyediting, grammar checking etc. so I'm happy to give your draft a once-over from that perspective before you submit it to AFC if that might be useful for you? Blue-Sonnet (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Moscow (1238), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siege of Moscow. 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) 19:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

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:Siege of Bamyan (1221) 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.

Snowycats (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

No i don’t want it to be merged to mongol invasion of khwarezmian empire i want it to be a seperate article so il keep editing and adding sources Shadow. 547 (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Shadow. 547! 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! Snowycats (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AirshipJungleman29 were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of events). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

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:Siege of Bamyan (1221) 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.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 no offense but i do not understand what u just said like what do u want from me and why is my article not being accepted like can u talk in simple words because my grammar is not good Shadow. 547 (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 also im telling you right now i will NOT merge it to the mongol invasion of khwarezmian empitr article i want it to be a seperate article and theres many sources about Bamiyan its just that im lazy so it takes long and i have school aswell Shadow. 547 (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

So you do understand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Only that but i dont understand why its not being accepted like i put a lot of sources Shadow. 547 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

None of them talk very much about the siege—what we call "significant coverage". Alison Behnke has three sentences, George Kohn has two, Llewelyn Morgan has less than half of one sentence. They are instead focused on the general campaign. Saying "im telling you right now i will NOT merge it to the mongol invasion of khwarezmian empitr article" because you don't like what the sources are saying is not helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 But I literally checked the sources and they describe the text i put in my article and even tho if they are focused on something more than what im talking about theres still sources i can find for my article so just wait a while and it will be accepted (probably) but one question how many sources do i even need so my article gets accepted? Shadow. 547 (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Typically, you need at least three reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 then it will be accepted and it will become a new article? Shadow. 547 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 hey so i added a few references can u check the article and see if this is good or? because im also gonna be adding a lot of information about the siege of bamiyan because what i found about the siege is interesting but i just wanna know if my article looks good right now Shadow. 547 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Draft:Siege of Bamyan (1221). This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. If the article has failed AFC twice then it's not ready to be moved to mainspace. Please don't move it again, thanks. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Sack of Suzdal, was deleted as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

hey so i FORGOT to remove the "test" text and i was gonna work on it time by time so thats why i created it Shadow. 547 (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Bamyan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hazara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mongolia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mongolian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page Golden Horde, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Do not edit quotes to insert links to articles. Quotes should never be altered. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

And do bother to look up what a WP:REDIRECT is before you nominate them for deletion? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

If you are creating redirects for the sole purpose of adding them into categories, please stop and look at WP:RCAT: "Redirects are not usually sorted to article categories". A reminder: categories are to help readers navigate between actual articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Bamyan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Timurid.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you please stop adding the duration in years to historical state infoboxes? You can clearly see that this is not standard practice, and it's disruptive for you to then edit-war on this as you did at Mongol Empire. Readers can do the math themselves if they want, otherwise it's unnecessary clutter and a distraction from the more substantive chronological information. If you disagree, start a talk page discussion on this on the relevant article(s). R Prazeres (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of wars involving Mongolia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ainu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTBROKEN. Remsense ‥ 论 21:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

K Shadow. 547 (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Did you know nominations/Mongol siege of Kaifeng (1232). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Cinderella157 (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

im on vacation and il look into it later on when im back Shadow. 547 (talk) 10:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you assume ownership of articles again, as you did at Siege of Bamyan, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 alr fine and also why did u block me from discord? Shadow. 547 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Nicopolis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Croatia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Shadow. 547. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Liberation of Khovd, 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) 23:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah i dont care about liberation of khovd that was ai💀 Shadow. 547 (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Shadow. 547,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jamie's Got Tentacles for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Jamie's Got Tentacles to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Uhh does this affect my other draft article that im working on and if i move it to an Article will it work? Shadow. 547 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

You seem to get hyperfixated on things you find annoying, and then proceeding to change every instance you can find. First it was Bamyan vs. Bamiyan, for which you moved archived DYK nominations, edited several-year-old GA reviews, and much else. Now it seems you love adding invisible borders to images, doing nothing but clutter up editors’ watchlists, and now editing other comments. Please stop: you are being a WP:TIMESINK, and I am very close to requesting that an admin ban you from editing infoboxes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

More useless time-wasting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I wanna know how is it time wasting because im literally fixing the links theres no article called the Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire only Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire Shadow. 547 (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

You are not fixing anything. For all the time you've spent fiddling about with redirects, you clearly still haven't read the page about them. Guess what? They have a purpose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Shadow. 547. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Liberation of Khovd".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I dont work on it anymore so yeah you guy’s can delete it Shadow. 547 (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Mongol invasion of Europe did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the Talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Battles involving the Mongols has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Shadow. 547. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Caucasus Mountain, 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) 17:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Shadow. 547. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Siege of Nishapur, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 17:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi bro I see you your contribution on Wikipedia project Mongolia, Can you help me to improve Ulgii Central Mosque, English articles are full of misinformation much about it, and I do not know Mongolian language, I try to add some sources by using Google web translator. Can you please improve it by providing some Historical context of it??

Thanks for attention 獅眠洞 (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@獅眠洞I kinda stopped working on wikipedia articles because i just dont feel like it anymore but il think about it Shadow. 547 (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reply 獅眠洞 (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Your welcome Shadow. 547 (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Shadow. 547,

Thank you for creating Siege of Nishapur (1221).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please add WP:RELIABLE references to unsourced sections in the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Agent VII}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Agent 007 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Siege of Nishapur (1221). If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 I dont but ok + stop messing with the article it’s fine as it is Shadow. 547 (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you assume ownership of articles, as you did at Siege of Nishapur (1221). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for contravening Wikipedia's policy against harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Lofty abyss 21:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Please do not delete or alter legitimate talk page comments from other editors. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

What? @AirshipJungleman29 What you talking about where Shadow. 547 (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Siege of Nishapur (1221) 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 Nishapur (1221) 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.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! This is not a proper name so it does not need to be capitalized. Mellk (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok Shadow. 547 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Siege of Lahore (1241). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Siege of Lahore (1241), 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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

qcne (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

YESS FINALLY THANK YOU🔥 Shadow. 547 (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Please do not introduce links to draft articles in actual articles, as you did to Siege of Lahore. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Lahore (1043), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tripuri and Kalachuri dynasty.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Siege of Ghazni (1221). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The page Battle of Chương Dương has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Sush150Shadow. 547,

You can't just move any old articles to Draft space. Please review WP:DRAFTIFY so you better understand when draftifying can be appropriate and when it's not. Most of the articles you moved were too old to be draftified which is only for newly created articles, not ones that are 10 years old. If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

...when they don't want one is disruptive. Doing it repeatedly is very disruptive. Blanking their request to have your disruptive creation of their user page deleted with the edit summary "no" is pointly disruptive. . If you engage in conduct like this again you will be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

💀 Shadow. 547 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Dörbei Doqsin. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The page Battle of Nishapur (1447) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

What?? Shadow. 547 (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Liz Shadow. 547 (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Shadow. 547,

I was wondering why you tagged this draft as a CSD G7. The page creator is blocked so they didn't tag the page for G7 deletion nor was the page "blanked" so it was not a valid CSD G7. And because you tagged the page early, it is no longer eligible for CSD G13 speedy deletion as a stale draft which is why I was reviewing it.

Please read through the criteria for speedy deletion at WP:CSD so you are familiar for when they apply. As for this draft, it will now be eligible for speedy deletion in May 2026 so please, please, look at the page history and do not tag a draft page or sandbox early. If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Siege of Balkh (1220). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more non-primary sourcing to establish notability. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Bamyan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Shadow. 547. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Jamie's Got Tentacles episodes, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Ottoman conquests and invasions. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you unconstructively edit Wikipedia using a large language model. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

No Shadow. 547 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Toadspike [Talk] 20:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey so I don’t know where to reply at but I just want to let you guy’s know I think I’m doing good at simple english wikipedia, even tho it feels empty im making articles like I recently made Siege of Erzurum also known as the article which I used AI on and it got me blocked well anyways I workwd on it on my sandbox and it succeeded and I’m very glad I know how to make proper articles without relying on AI for sources and I’m working on making other articles aswell and then soon I will rework on other articles aswell Shadow. 547 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

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).

Shadow. 547 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I apologise for ignoring all the warnings and using AI for articles when I’ve been told not to but I just want to contribute to Wikipedia and improve military history articles and the reason I used AI was because I needed help translating and I guess the AI just got confused and again I am sorry for what i’ve been doing I hope that I could be unblocked after this apology hopefully

Decline reason:

There are many editions of Wikipedia and nothing is special about the English version. If you are unable to effectively communicate or write in English without the use of AI tools I suggest you look into editing on the Wikipedia of your native language, which you are still able to do even whilst blocked here. CoconutOctopus talk 19:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Shadow. 547 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah but it’s not the same I wanna edit on English Wikipedia not the other wikipedias

I guess you don't remember, but we had this same discussion over the Siege in Bamyan article and I spent a lot of time and effort trying to help guide you through it until your article was eventually accepted.

Do you remember this discussion? Or this warning I gave you in December 2024? Or when I spent more time trying to help you here? I also warned against moving pages improperly here and tried to give you further guidance for things you apparently carried on doing later down the line.

I'm really disappointed that you didn't pay attention to any of that.

We've spent almost a year telling you not to use AI but you carried on using it anyway.

Why should we believe you now? I'm afraid I just can't.

There are also other problems, like when you attacked other editors and moved pages when you shouldn't have. The comments here aren't ok.

Honestly, I think your best chance is the Wikipedia:Standard offer - edit in another project, like Simple English Wikipedia. Prove you can edit on another project without causing problems, then submit an appeal once you have proof that you can edit productively for at least six months without using AI or causing problems for other people. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

"I needed help translating and I guess the AI just got confused" reads to me very much like an admission to lacking the necessary competence (specifically, in the English language) to usefully contribute here. If you can't read and write in English to an acceptable standard without assistance from software, you should instead look to editing in a language where you are more capable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t even know much about wikipedia that time tho Shadow. 547 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

But you do now, that's the problem. I spent a long time explaining the problem with AI so that you would know better next time.

From that point on, you should have known. If you didn't understand, then you should have asked someone. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay well I apologise for what I’ve done and I won’t use AI again Shadow. 547 (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Also if my block doesn’t go away could I atleast edit my sandboxes and my user pages? Shadow. 547 (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd actually recommend you try editing over at Simple English Wikipedia for a while - it's easier than English Wikipedia and is a good place to both hone your skills as an editor and build up evidence of productive editing for the Wikipedia:Standard offer.

That way you can keep editing, since Simple is really similar to English Wikipedia (it really is), and increase your chances of becoming a productive editor here in the future.

You can also check out the List of Wikipedias to see if there's a different project that takes your fancy, perhaps in another language? Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Will think about it but can I please edit my sandboxes and my user page? Also couldn’t I just get a ban from creating articles or something why completely block from all articles atleast 2 options there could be where I only edit my sandboxes and I ask @AirshipJungleman29 to upload them once it’s good or block me from making articles Shadow. 547 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so I can't do any of those things, I'm afraid.

That said, if it was an option then it probably would have been suggested by the blocking admin before a block was put in place. Airshipjungleman29 has already been reviewing your articles and they weren't appropriate for Wikipedia, that's why you were blocked. You were given lots of feedback and suggestions, but you didn't take that on board - I'm afraid that's on you and now you need to deal with the consequences.

In order to be unblocked, you need to prove that you can create articles and edit to the standard that's needed on Wikipedia. The only real way you can do this, is to follow the standard offer process I mentioned earlier.

If you can build up a really good edit history elsewhere, then you might even be allowed to go back to full editing without restrictions, but that will take hard work on your end - we can't do that for you. Otherwise, any possible editing restrictions would be based on the quality of the edit history that you bring to any future appeal in six months or so. It's honestly too soon to discuss that right now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is i’ll just lose motivation tho and I want to edit wikipedia especially the english wikipedia Shadow. 547 (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Except you can't. I know you want to, but you can't.

If you don't want to edit here in six months because you've lost motivation then that's fine, editing Wikipedia is not compulsory for anyone.

If you still want to edit then there are plenty of similar projects (as I've said before, Simple English Wikipedia is very close so please take a look at it), but you cannot edit this specific Wikipedia right now. It's not your decision anymore. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright i’ll work on simple wikipedia then but could the 6 months please be decreased like could you possibly ask an admin for it to be decreased to 1-2 months ? Shadow. 547 (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Also I need to copy the text from articles and upload them to simple wikipedia but slightly reword it what do I do since I’m blocked Shadow. 547 (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

1. The Standard offer is set to six months because that's how long it usually takes to get enough proof to show that you've made a long-term change in behaviour - two months is way too short for that. Admins don't want to unblock you if there's a chance that you'll fall back into bad habits, which is what happened after our discussion at the Siege at Bamyan article.
2. You should still be able to cut and paste from the webpage, but you would need to manually format links etc. Bear in mind that Simple uses less complex language than "standard" Wikipedia, so do as much as you can to simplify it. People go there specifically to find easy-to-read articles, so try to avoid cutting and pasting with just the occasional word swapped over. I'd even suggest keeping the original article open on another tab and rewrite it from sight, so read a paragraph at a time then write it again in your own words, but as simply and clearly as you can. There will be a Help Centre or Teahouse at Simple that can assist with any other questions you have about editing there.

Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Merv's revolt. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I can’t even edit so how am I supposed to work on it? Shadow. 547 (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

8bit12man I would like to say thank you for thanking the edit I added on the Mongol Empire article a few days ago before I’ve been blocked from editing wikipedia I thought it would get removed by AirshipJungleman29 since some big contributions I do end up being removed because they just aren’t good but yeah anyways thanks ~~Shadow. 547 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

No problem! That addition seemed like an actually useful one! 8bit12man (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike Hi there

So basically I am here to apologise for my disruptive edits I have made to wikipedia and for constant use of AI which I shouldn’t have been using for articles which I apologise for that and I should of not been ignorant of the warnings and the chances I’ve been given like I was just ignoring them when I shouldn’t have because now it only gave me a consequence for it which was where I cannot edit this specific wikipedia no more only the outside of wikipedia like simple english or other language wikipedia which just feels empty and doesn’t fit the mood. I understand that there will always be a consequence no matter what and I am really sorry for what I did and I’m willing to improve but I was also wondering if I could possibly have a chance at editing again in this wikipedia again or if the edit block be possibly decreased…? If none of these work for you then could it be possible where my edits start to be monitored until a specific time? It would mean a lot for me if I do get unblocked since I do like to spent some time contributing on wikipedia and trying to help out in articles.

Thank you for your time. Shadow. 547 (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

@Shadow. 547 We've already had this discussion - I spent two days explaining things to you above and went into detail over why this is very unlikely to happen.

An admin can only review a block if you submit another official appeal, but I really don't recommend doing that because I can't see the decision changing.

If you did choose to submit another appeal, be aware that your current argument boils down to "I don't want to follow the Standard offer because I like this Wikipedia better".

Admins' priority is to protect English Wikipedia from disruption, so I'm afraid that your personal preferences don't matter.

It could also give the wrong impression - you're basically saying that you aren't willing to put in the effort to learn and grow as an editor because you don't feel like doing what you've been asked to do.

Look at the reason why your first appeal was rejected and argue those specific points.

Just to reiterate that I do not recommend that you make another appeal, but if you choose to do so you must understand that you're claiming that CoconutOctopus was wrong in their decision - you need to prove to an independent administrator exactly how and why they were wrong. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Shadow, I already told you that I won't be dealing with this block, so there is no need to ping me. If you appeal, someone else will review your request. However, you're still missing two critical points:

1. You used AI to write or translate articles. If you use AI, you have to take full responsibility for reviewing the AI output. If the AI makes mistakes, those are your mistakes.
2. It is not anyone else's job to clean up your mistakes. We will not "monitor" your edits for you if that means cleaning up AI slop that you can't be bothered to check against the sources.

You need to commit to stop using AI before you have a chance at getting unblocked. Toadspike [Talk] 07:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

On re-reading the Talk page, I can also see a long history of other problems too - drafts, redirects, moves, personal attacks, editing other people's comments - general disruption & causing problems for other editors that they (or a bot) have to fix.

@Shadow. 547, that's why a six month history of productive editing elsewhere, without demonstrating any of these issues, would be best for you.

You've said in other disputes/feedback that you don't want to do what you've been asked because you don't feel like it, but that just won't fly here.

We all have to do things we don't like to get where we need to be, and this is one of those times for you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Noting here that the editor today asked on the Wikipedia Discord for WP:PROXYING edits on Kazakh–Dzungar Wars. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

??? That’s because the Result on that article is wrong it’s not supposed to be Kazakh victory and that Kazakh patriot keeps on changing the result to Kazakh victory with a unreliable source that’s why I mentioned it like it’s supposed to be Inconclusive and there’s a reason for it and that guy is making distruptive edits that’s why I am just letting you guys know + If I wasn’t allowed to do this proxy editing or whatever then couldn’t someone atleast mention this on the talk page or something? Shadow. 547 (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

We didn't know you'd do it, that's why we didn't tell you. I don't know why people on Discord didn't tell you, but maybe it's because that's Discord and not Wikipedia?

Unfortunately for you, the very first page linked to on the block notice is the blocking policy, which specifically tells you further down the page that you can't ask other people to edit for you whilst blocked (proxy editing) - that would defeat the purpose of being blocked, because you're essentially getting someone else to do the typing on your behalf. It also means that you were notified, you just didn't read the information you were given.

If you're was allowed, you could theoretically stand next to your mate and tell them exactly which buttons to press, or hand then a sheet of paper telling them what you want them to do (just like you asked/told someone what you wanted changing on that article) - this is why proxy editing is not allowed in any form. You're blocked so you can't contribute to English Wikipedia at all, in any way.

This could also reset the six month timer on the Standard offer because you tried to edit Wikipedia in spirit, even though you can't physically do it yourself.

You really need to step away from English Wikipedia completely. Chat to people on Discord but stay away from any discussion over editing English Wikipedia. It's just not worth the risk. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why people on Discord didn't tell you for the record, everyone immediately told them that proxying is not allowed when they attempted to get others to make edits for them. they were subsequently removed from the server. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 18:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh that definitely changes things. Thank you for providing much-needed context.

@Shadow. 547 since your ban was partially down to you not listening when other people are desperately trying to warn you something is a really bad idea, you need to learn to listen to them.

You're in this situation because you're letting what you want to do completely override your judgment on what you should be doing. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright then Shadow. 547 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I told you many times over direct message. I can quote the logs if you want? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike hey toadspike could you add me on discord cuz i cant dm u and i cant friend request u Shadow. 547 (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The only reason you can use this talk page whilst blocked is to request an unblock. Please don't use it for other purposes such as this or you will likely have access removed. CoconutOctopus talk 12:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh alright then and it’s only because I have questions about editing and I don’t prefer to ask here Shadow. 547 (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You can't edit as you are blocked. Thus, there is no need to ask questions about it. CoconutOctopus talk 12:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay Shadow. 547 (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I also want to remind you about what I said re. the six month time-limit here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

K Shadow. 547 (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Shadow. 547, you have to stop working with other editors on articles for English Wikipedia. You're blocked. That means no editing, no collaborating, no asking people to make edits for you. Nothing. Every time you keep doing this, you have to reset that six-month timer on the standard offer: at this point you won't be eligible for a standard offer unblock until June 25. If you keep this up, you're going to get all your friends blocked too. -- asilvering (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I literally didn’t tell them to upload to english wikipedia and I’m not asking people to make edits to wikipedia oh my god how many times do I have to explain this? Did airship tell you this? Shadow. 547 (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

And why did you delete my friends article called Siege of Taliqan?? he worked on most of it all I did was help with some minor improvements and give him sources through discord Shadow. 547 (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

That means no editing, no collaborating, no asking people to make edits for you. Nothing. -- asilvering (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay but my friends asking for the article back can he bring it back? He worked on the article anyways Shadow. 547 (talk) 10:15, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

No. -- asilvering (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

@Shadow. 547 I hate seeing you continually shoot yourself in the foot like this - you need to act like English Wikipedia doesn't exist for at least six months.

You can read it at the absolute most.

• no proxy editing,
• no collaboration,
• no helping someone with their article,
• no doing things for other people,
• no getting them to do things for you.

You are not allowed to affect or change anything about English Wikipedia, directly or indirectly, in any way whilst you're blocked.

If you can just ask someone else to change an article for you, what's the point of a block?

If you make edits and someone else submits them in their name, how is that any different?

If someone else's article gets deleted or declined, you are still blocked - you cannot talk or ask about it because blocked editors are not entitled to do that. You can discuss & appeal your block, but that's it.

If this carries on it could lead to a full ban and no-one wants to see that.

Please stay away from here, for your own sake - that includes replying to this post, please just read it and take it to heart.

BTW If your friend told you they would not be submitting the article to English Wikipedia then did it anyway without your consent, you really shouldn't be working with them (especially if they knew you were blocked). Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay but I don’t want my 6 month timer thing reset because that wasn’t really my fault like been doing good and making some good articles on simple english wikipedia aswell Shadow. 547 (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I don’t want the 6 month timer thingy to reset just because of some incidents. My friend and me have been working on Siege of Taliqan article on Telegram we were finding sources and all that he worked on most of it and I pasted his work onto my sandbox then the article. This may look like I was prpxy editing but it’s all just a misunderstanding he worked on most of it I only did the rewording and adding minor improvements. And as for the claim that “The patriot of history” is me I would like to just say it simply isn’t me it is my twin brother and he is in the same community as me that edit wikipedia. Anyways I’ve been doing very good on simple wikipedia I made articles and the articles are even better than how I used to make them, I improved a lot since the block and I may have not mentioned this I dont know but I’ll mention it now just in case. I did kept on reverting edits and making disruptive edits on purpose and do stuff I shouldn’t have been doing I know it wasn’t allowed but I got a consequence for that when I thought I wouldn’t Shadow. 547 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I get that you made a mistake, unfortunately that mistake meant that your timer was reset to June and an admin confirmed this limit is staying.

People on Discord told you in November that you were proxy editing and that was not allowed, so you really need to start listening to advice from others.

Please just stay away from English Wikipedia entirely until June - I wouldn't even edit this Talk page.

If you keep pushing things, then your Talk page access might get taken away too. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific for the November one because I don’t really remember and also im only saying this for my defense because I wasn’t editing on another account I didnt tell people what to edit Shadow. 547 (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

It's from these two messages above this discussion: This one and this one. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The collaboration was literally for simple english wikipedia I did not tell him to upload it to English Wikipedia why am I held accountable for his actions that he did with his own choice I didn’t tell anyone to do anything on English Wikipedia like this is genuinely stupid Shadow. 547 (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that we can't confirm that. All we know is that you were asking questions on Discord in November that were about proxy editing, multiple people warned you that you would be proxy editing.

You were apparently kicked from Discord and moved to working on Telegram, then an article was uploaded that you had personally worked on.

Perhaps you've been genuinely unlucky, but we're on the outside and can only look at the events that occurred.

This has only put your standard offer back by one month so it's not a huge loss; besides, this gives you more time to get as much evidence of productive editing together and will hopefully increase your chances of a successful appeal as a result of having stronger (more) evidence. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I literally asked if people could edit the article because some kazakh nationalist kept on changing the result on Kazakh-Dzungar wars article to Kazakh victory when it’s supposed to be Inconclusive and what he did was just vandalising the article there’s a reason on why it was set to Inconslusive and its been like that for years and there was even a message next to the result saying to not change it to a specific victory without consenus that’s why I had to report it to people like I didn’t know that reporting vandalism while your blocked wasn’t allowed + theres literally no need for the extra month my edits are fine already i’ve made articles better than how I used to before it only takes like less than a week to make an article and improve it for me but it depends on my motivation because then I would say about 3 days Shadow. 547 (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Sigh. Well, I tried my best here. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

You sure did. I've revoked TPA. At this rate he's just talking himself into being denied a standard offer unblock. -- asilvering (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:MunkhtushigaTheGreatMongol. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Please can admins review the above ANI discussion when considering any future appeals, as this may affect the timeframes for the Standard offer and overall decision, thank you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Shadow. 547. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jamie's Got Tentacles!, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 01:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

is declined. User is now not eligible under WP:SO until 2026-09-09. --Yamla (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Shadow. 547. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Jamie's Got Tentacles!".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)