Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Polish–Ottoman War (1672–1676). Your edits are unsourced and appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Perast (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if I provide sources for what I wrote, will it be possible to keep it? Historyk.ok (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post them at Talk:Polish–Ottoman War (1672–1676)#Result with quotes, please. Perast (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok Historyk.ok (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I wanted to apologize for the discussions in the war of 1672, I don't have much time for further discussion, but maybe one day, when I find the sources, I will write them there, but for now, I just apologize for wasting your time. 😅 Historyk.ok (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this message, I accept your apology and I do not hold any grudges towards you. I am sure we will meet again though since you edit a lot of Ottoman-related articles (as do I). Perast (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Moldavian campaign (1497–1499). 2A00:23EE:2918:5FC6:6823:BFF:FE82:F868 (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

such information cannot be submitted to Infobox Historyk.ok (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP guideline or manual of style is this claim of yours? 82.36.106.253 (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottoman attack does not happen in this campaign, and territorial changes fall to the Territorial changes Historyk.ok (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Moldavian campaign (1497–1499). 82.36.106.253 (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Denniss. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Battle of Monte Cassino have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Denniss (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Historyk.ok,

Do not remove or rewrite comments on talk pages or noticeboards once an editor has responded to you. Instead, if you change your mind, strike out your comment by doing this <s>Example</s> appears as Example. Is that understood? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before I saw it, I deleted part of the discussion because it was out of context Historyk.ok (talk)

Don't delete others' comments. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you can read? I wrote that I did it before I saw this answer Historyk.ok (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 72 hours from editing 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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't think I should be banned because

1. I initially received a warning, but due to the confusion caused by the discussion, I was banned for some unknown reason

2. there is no rule on Wikipedia about not sending emoticons, you can't offend anyone, but if there is no such rule, you should use a

3. generally try to take care of Wikipedia and develop it

warning

Decline reason:

This isn't remotely persuasive. PhilKnight (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2025 (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.

Historyk.ok (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I am writing to respectfully request a reconsideration of my ban and the restoration of my editing privileges. I understand that my previous actions may have violated the project's guidelines, and I fully accept responsibility for any mistakes I have made. First and foremost, I want to emphasize that my intentions were never harmful. If my edits did not comply with the guidelines, it was due to a lack of understanding rather than bad faith. Since the ban was imposed, I have thoroughly reviewed Wikipedia's editing policies to ensure that I do not make similar mistakes in the future. I pledge that if given a second chance, I will strictly follow Wikipedia's rules, verify sources, engage in discussions in a constructive manner, and avoid any actions that could violate the community’s standards. My goal is to contribute valuable and well-researched content to the encyclopedia. I kindly ask you to reconsider my case. Everyone makes mistakes, but what matters is learning from them. I can assure you that I have learned my lesson and am ready to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration. Historyk.ok (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If I were to check I think that I would find that this was written with an AI- as it's vague. AI cannot capture the specifics of your situation. You are blocked, not an AI, so we want to hear from you directly. Please write in your own words without the aid of an AI. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2025 (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.

I won't hide the fact that I wrote some of it myself, but I also copied some of it from Ai, so should I write it again but without anyone's help 331dot? Historyk.ok (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2025

• I have restored the declined unblock request. While blocked, you are not permitted to remove declined unblock requests. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I would like to kindly ask you to unblock my account. I understand that I acted wrongly by making that offensive, nationality-based edit with emoticons [[1]]. Since I was banned, I have taken the time to reread and fully understand the rules. Now, I completely realize why I was banned. Nevertheless, I would like to ask for a second chance. I have truly learned from my mistakes and can assure you that this will never happen again. I never had bad intentions and have always tried to follow the existing rules. I sincerely hope for another opportunity to return to editing, this time fully in accordance with all the guidelines. Thank you for taking the time to read my request. I hope it will be considered. As the saying goes, everyone deserves a second chance. Once again, thank you for reading my appeal.

Decline reason:

It's hard to accept that using an offensive, nationality-based emoji sequence in an edit summary was done without bad intentions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2025 (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.

Historyk.ok (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @Historyk.ok:, new posts and requests need to go at the bottom so everyone can see the order of events properly. I've fixed this for you.

BTW You've only been blocked for 72hrs, I'd recommend just waiting it out - all these declined unblock requests doesn't give a very good impression and you risk landing in hot water if you make a misstep with so many admin eyes on you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I know, I decided this would be my last requestHistoryk.ok (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your third unblock request looks almost identical to your second unblock request and still reads like you took it from an AI tool. We wanted to hear from you, not a manufactured unblock rationale composed by softwear. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote it myself, I promise, but if you don't believe it, OK, I'll wait these 2 days Historyk.ok (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]