Exxess

Hello Exxess, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Abbott75 11:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

state Citizenship

Thanks. Just give some thought to the matter and write it up as you wish - I have nothing else to add beyond what I already did. Good luck. Mercy11 (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Thank you for your message. You clearly put a lot of time and research into the changes you made to the article, and I know from experience how frustrating it is when another editor swoops in and reverts all your work like that.

Please don't be discouraged. Take a look at WP:BRD, an essay that describes a common editing cycle: you were bold in making changes, another editor reverted your changes, so now it's time to discuss your proposed changes on the article's Talk page.

As far as the substance of your edits, I'm afraid I don't know enough about the 14th Amendment to judge whether there was OR. One of the drawbacks of using primary sources (such as statutes and court decisions) instead of secondary sources (such as journal articles or other analyses of the law) is that primary sources may be open to interpretation, which invites charges of OR. See WP:PSTS for more information about using primary and secondary sources in Wikipedia.

Good luck. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy—WP:PSTS in particular—supports the other editors in this dispute. Court decisions are considered primary sources, not secondary sources, and you really need to have some secondary sources that discuss both the 14th Amendment and the court decision in question. Good luck. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Polish heraldry

Hello! I saw Your input in topic and I wonder if You have time to help in improving the article? Also, You added "In the year 1244, Bolesław, Duke of Masovia, identified members of the knights' clan as members of a genealogia:....". Is there any chance to get the reference so I can make citation?. Than You in advance! camdan (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank You! I included the reference. :) camdan (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dąbrowski Manor in Michałowice (August 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Devopam was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dąbrowski Manor in Michałowice and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dąbrowski Manor in Michałowice, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Devopam (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Exxess! Having an article 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! Devopam (talk) 10:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dąbrowski Manor in Michałowice has been accepted

Dąbrowski Manor in Michałowice, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Szlachta". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 September 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Szlachta, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

August 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Szlachta, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sam Sailor 22:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Sam Sailor. Will leave it all out in the open from now on... - Exxess (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

re: Anti-Polish Khmelnytsky Uprising

Those are roughly correct, particularly when used together; but I still think this (adjectives for KU) is undue level of detail for the lead of the szlachta article. Seriously, no work defining szlachta, or even its history, would even mention KU. I will review the discussion/article shortly, but my gut feeling is this the best solution will be to remove some off topic stuff from the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Found a bit time to look into it. Simple: remove KU from the lead. Problem solved. We can discuss its anti-Polish dimension (which I think is roughly correct) in the KU article if you want, but it has nothing to do with the definition of szlachta. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot of unreferenced stuff there. This article need a major rewrite/referencing, no doubt there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Szlachta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electorate. 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) 05:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

ANI report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

You have been blocked for one week from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸, I think the block is knee-jerk. Harassment, or being forthright - judgement call, considering the context. The intent is to challenge certain editors' edits. Just being forthright. - Exxess (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I am capable of reading diffs, and your comments were beyond the pale. "Forthright" is speaking frankly about content. You went way beyond that to personally attack specific editors, not their edits and not the content. That behavior is not allowed on this collaborative website. If you agree to abandon that type of misconduct, you can continue to edit Wikipedia. If you persist with personal attacks, then I am sorry, but Wikipedia is not the website for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cullen³²⁸. Here is how user Lembit Staan began a talk discussion here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta - "No it is not. This user [Exxess] keeps pumping bullshit his own interpretations into the article:"

That's an invite for all editors to attack the so-called "bullshit" interpretations in the article.

Personally, I think my refutation of what Lembit Staan characterizes as "bullshit" is well referenced with secondary sources. I think I tried to engage in a factual, detailed, precise discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta, while I am being accused of "owning the article," "original research," WP:SYNTH. It is ridiculous. I am sticking to the secondary sources.

I know the detailed history, and I have been accused of sock-puppetry, etc. It just goes on and on when peculiar editors are challenged. The "deletion meddling" Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus points out is disingenuous and painting that in a false light. That was an honest mistake, because a user I believe named Korwinsky was responding in a way that made it very difficult to follow a discussion chronologically, with statements about me, like, "Damn you suck at history." If my responses constitute a "personal attack", then we're letting so-called "civility" trump the facts.

I try to ignore the uncivil tactics, and the underhanded tactics, and focus on the facts, but when it comes to butchering an article, well, I wrote I wrote.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus is putting the situation in false light, in my opinion. 1% so-called "personal attacks", 99% useful contributions.

So, thank you for your consideration and your comments, but I am definitely doing something right. - Exxess (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Let me be crystal clear: If you persist with this misconduct, you will be blocked indefinitely. Is that what you want? Or will you reconsider your own behavior? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cullen³²⁸. I would consider it a badge of honor for you to block me for precisely three months. Please block me for three months. This statement is a sad joke - "This user [Exxess] keeps pumping bullshit his own interpretations into the article". It seems I am required to go on a "hunger strike" of sorts, to protest the underhanded tactics of peculiar editors. Please do me the honor of blocking me for three months. Thank you. - Exxess (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

No. I am not in the business of handing out badges of honor. My job is to enforce policy and stop disruption. Your block is for one week, not three months. This discussion is about your misconduct, not about any ill advised comments by other editors. The question now is not the length of your block, but rather whether you will return to productive editing without harassing and personally attacking other editors. So consider that question for the next six plus days. The decision is yours in the end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cullen³²⁸. I see no misconduct, only what was necessary and proper in defense of the facts. That being written, I accept the block. Do what you think is necessary and proper. - Exxess (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

For the record: My major problem with the article "Szlachta" was not the belligerent editor, but the apparent lack of interest of the Polish community to the subject. I admit I may be in error, and asked them for a third opinion several times, but got none, and the article continues to be dominated by a WP:OWNer. Heck, I even did not complain then they violated the 3RR reverting my "knee-jerk" edits. I understand that only a community can handle a WP:OWNer. But the community seems to be deterred by the repetitive walls of text generated by this editor. Forcing this editor to be more polite will not solve the problems with the article text they generated. When I come back there in 2 months, I feel I will have to go in a hard way of the procedure of formal dispute resolution for each and every dubious statement this user introduced. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite:

If you have the time and energy, please monitor my response in the interests of Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade and getting to the root of what I perceived as gaming the system. Look at my history. I have done this with three editors: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, Lembit Staan, and User:Korwinski; BUT, in general I am well behaved. I do not need to defend the record. Feel free to admonish me and tell me about my misconduct, per Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade.

I remain detached where Wikipedia articles and information is concerned, meaning I am neutral. Feel free to object to via Wikipedia:Wall of text regarding this response. The intent is not to overwhelm, but to be precise. It is a gray area, and the editors I cite above are very quick to presume bad faith on my part.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - I became an editor on Wikipedia on 26 May 2007. Piotrus joined about three years earlier than I did, on 10 April 2004.

You can see here I created an article [Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family].

At the time on Wikipedia, there was an inclusionist and deletionist debate going on, but accept the errors in my memory. I do not have time to deal with all the minutiae.

I understand Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus's objections to that article. I overcame his first Wikipedia:Articles for deletion with random editors supporting my position. Since I was a new editor on Wikipedia, I could not canvass other editors, unlike Piotrus, who had about three years of experience on Wikipedia over me.

In the current situation regarding my being blocked, I called "canvassing" "rally up a posse" of "the clique" because bad faith is presumed on my part. I will support that in a moment, but I think my contributions counter that.

Back to winning the first deletion round - I was accused by Piotrus of all type of bad faith behavior - sockpuppetry, one-topic editor. I am not going to plow through the minutiae.

Anyway, then, there was another Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for the article Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family that I lost, and I objected with a Wikipedia:Wall of text.

Here is why - Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, a core policy. Quoting: "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.

I admit I made a mistake by being overly aggressive. I mitigate that mistake because of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I understand the consensus around that particular article. Piotrus wrote me a nice message stating do not take it personally.

Current blockage, which, I do not object to. I understand the concern. I accept it. I agree with it.

User:Korwinski - Here is what the secondary source said:

Quoting Ukrainian historian Orest Subtelny, University of Toronto, on the Khmelnytsky Uprising known as the Cossack-Polish War,

"Several Cossack detachments advanced west into territories settled mostly by Poles or Belarusians, and anti-noble and anti-Polish revolts also broke out there. ... Zhdanovych tried to hold the anti-Polish front but did not succeed." - https://web.archive.org/web/20180828200830/http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CC%5CO%5CCossack6PolishWar.htm - Exxess (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Korwinski - I am presuming, based on the name, the editor is Polish. He deleted an edit over and over again citing that source. The editor made a statement, if memory serves me correctly, about that source will confuse Wikipedia readers because the source states anti-Polish in an article entitled Szlachta.

I maintained this:

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, a core policy. Quoting: "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.

Quoting: "Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and reflections of current published knowledge within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject."

User:Korwinski, deleting that secondary source, with the justification being, "it will confuse readers", kills we include all significant views on a subject, a core policy, if I may be so bold.

Current situation at Szlachta - Lembit Staan is presuming bad faith on my part.

Quoting Lembit Staan - WP:OWN

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta - "No it is not. This user [Exxess] keeps pumping bullshit his own interpretations into the article:"

Original research

WP:SYNTH

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, a core policy. - A year 1917 secondary source Lembit Staan deleted follows:

Source 02 - Roman Dmowski (1917). "Poland, Old And New". In Duff, James Duff (ed.). RUSSIAN REALITIES & PROBLEMS. Cambridge, East of England, ENGLAND, UNITED KINGDOM: Cambridge University Press. pp. 91–92. "The clan system survived in this way throughout the whole of Polish history. It is evident that the warrior class in Poland had quite a different origin and a different legal and social position from that of the feudal nobility of Western Europe."

Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade - Lembit Staan wrote the source is obsolete or outdated. I think that is smug, and what I call a knee-jerk deletion because the facts do not become "outdated" or "obsolete" that compose history.

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth

That 1917 source is supported by a more recent source, years 1998, and 1987:

Source 01 - Quoting Adam Zamoyski (1998) [1987]. THE POLISH WAY: A THOUSAND-YEAR HISTORY OF THE POLES AND THEIR CULTURE (Fourth Printing ed.). New York City, NEW YORK, U.S.A.: Hippocrene Books. p. 55. ISBN 0-7818-0200-8. "One cannot substitute the terms 'nobility' or 'gentry' for szlachta because it had little in common with those classes in other European countries either in origin, composition or outlook."

Then, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, opens a talk section Talk:Szlachta#Please_avoid_using_obsolete_sources about "controversial" statements based on obsolete sources, a bit ambiguous in the extreme, on a ping from another editor upon Lembit Staan making accusations of bad faith on my part here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta, example: "No it is not. This user [Exxess] keeps pumping bullshit his own interpretations into the article:"

Piotrus and Lembit Staan were just in a discussion to not change the title of the Szlachta article to "Polish nobility" because there is a distinction between commonly understood notions of feudal nobility and the szlachta - Talk:Szlachta/Archive 3#Requested_move_13_April_2021.

Upon that distinction, I decided to find sources that support the position of Piotrus and Lembit Staan and add to the Szlachta article. See above. I get met with deletions from Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus about "obsolete sources" and Lembit Staan talking about my "bullshit," and the "illogic" and the "nonsense."

But Lembit Staan is the editor that gave me the idea to add to the Szlachta article about the distinctions. Quoting Lembit Staan; 'I reverted the page move of TheEditMate because it was accompanied with brainless replacement of the word "szlachta" with "nobility" in the article,' - Talk:Szlachta/Archive 3#Requested_move_13_April_2021

There is an article entitled Royal elections in Poland. The szlachta elected their kings. I called the szlachta an electorate, and I supported it with a secondary source, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

Source 06 - Davies, Ivor Norman Richard; Dawson, Andrew Hutchinson; Jasiewicz, Krzysztof; Kondracki, Jerzy Aleksander; Wandycz, Piotr Stefan (2 June 2017). "Poland". Encyclopædia Britannica. p. 15. Retrieved 24 April 2021. "Ranging from the poorest landless yeomen to the great magnates, the szlachta insisted on the equality of all its members. As a political nation it was more numerous (8–10 percent) than the electorate of most European states even in the early 19th century."

Quoting Lembit Staan: 'I have never seen a definition "Szlachta was Polish electorate".'

THE SECONDARY SOURCE is COMPARING the szlachta as a political nation to THE ELECTORATE of most European states. I do not think it is "original research" or "synthesis" or "owning the article" or "pumping my bullshit interpretations" into the article, if the article states the szlachta were an electorate based on the secondary source.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus sees this as a "behavioral issue" on my part. Let the record reflect I see a violation of core Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, a core policy. Quoting: "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.

Quoting: "Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and reflections of current published knowledge within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject."

That is my allocution concerning the behavioral issues and the blockage. Do what you think is necessary and proper, but the above is for everyone's consideration. I understand and accept the reasons and concerns around the blockage. I see the problem as the editors opposing me make a lot of edits. I do not, so I have time to consider more than they do, and I do so, in the interest of a core Wikipedia policy: we include all significant views on a subject.

This is speculative, but based on behavior that is extremely predictable, my guess is the primordial problem is Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and Lembit Staan have a superficial understanding of what is discussed in the Szlachta article and secondary sources. That is not a personal attack. That is Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. I support that with adjectives used by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and Lembit Staan, despite reliable sources - "bullshit," "illogical," "dubious," "nonsense," "controversial," "obsolete," "outdated," and Lembit Staan's own words: 'I have never seen a definition "Szlachta was Polish electorate".'

That is where the primordial issue lies - 'I have never seen a definition "Szlachta was Polish electorate".'

Core Wikipedia policy: we include all significant views on a subject. I do not consider Lembit Staan's statement significant.

That is my intent - include all significant views on a subject.. Thank you and Have a Great Day, Everyone. - Exxess (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, I strongly concur with LS that the big problem is " the community seems to be deterred by the repetitive walls of text generated by this editor" - particularly given that they often contain very uncivil comments. I'd suggest a somewhat unorthodox solution: limit Exxcess from posting wall-of-texts. A word-size limit per day per each talk page could do wonders. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, thanks for your consideration and your reply. I do appreciate your time and efforts. As far as this particular clash, I am playing a long game of pitting your very justifiable citations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility against Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade, and Wikipedia:Citation underkill in support of what I consider paramount:

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, a core policy. Quoting: "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.

Quoting: "Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and reflections of current published knowledge within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject."

You are completely justified, Piotrus, in your citations. I agree with you, and I agree with the ban to the point I suggested the ban extend to three months, perhaps indefinitely. As my conduct is my property, the lapel of misconduct pinned to me I would prefer to label a badge of honor. There were violations, but, I am not so sure I did anything wrong, meaning I had no malicious intent to harm any editors. I was being challenging, and for the 1% of violations, there was 99% reasoned argument, meaning clarification, but there were violations. I accept that, and I agree. Per the above, and the deletion of reliable sources, I was attempting to cut off a problem at the knees - Lembit Staan's heralding he's going to butcher the article, and I make that Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade assertion based on his logic and justifications for his deletions, which elude me.

What I intend to do in the future, presuming I am not indefinitely banned, which I would accept and understand, is UNDO edits I do not agree with, which I rarely do, if you look at my record. I will UNDO edits I do not agree with. Then, I will make a pithy statement in a talk about why I do not agree. I will Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade and be uncharitable. Then, I will leave it to other editors to do what they will, despite apathy concerning anything medieval and Poland.

The Szlachta article is fundamental to understanding Poland, as the szlachta are there from the beginnings of the nation and statehood. Get the szlachta wrong and then there is no foundation for understanding Poland, which has a dramatic and complex history. It is a big story.

Per Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade, the article as it previously existed was a bastardized monstrosity of feudalism and republicanism, and the secondary sources support the szlachta were not a feudal nobility. I am neutral on the subject, but I am not neutral about include all significant views on a subject.

My edits have stood for years because Wikipedia:Citation underkill, then here comes Lembit Staan to do a hatchet job on (Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade) half-assed logic and trifles.

And, when I say "my edits" I do not mean I own the article. From the day I first encountered Piotrus, this has always been my intent - include all significant views on a subject.

I understand significant is an adjective.

And Piotrus, your comments, and actions, despite first impressions, are always appreciated. I come across the way I do in the interest of neutrality, as hard as that is to believe. I want people to hate me, so they focus on the secondary sources, not me.

And per Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade feel free to slaughter my logic. It's nothing personal. It's Wikipedia. - Exxess (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

You want to call a spade a spade? Fine. You're belligerent, show no desire to collaborate with others, display a massive battleground mentality, and stubbornly believe that only your interpretation of facts is the correct one. You are not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia, but to bludgeon everyone else into accepting your viewpoint. Unless you change this behavior, you will wind up indefinitely blocked or community banned from the English Wikipedia project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite:

Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade - the facts of my contributions counter that, and the above is an argument for Idiocracy. This is not facebook, a place to collect likes and friends. Here is how I see it, and read what I wrote above. I know it is long and taxing. If there is a consensus 2 + 2 = 9, but reliable sources state 2 + 2 = 4, then a bunch of editors (read what I wrote) start deleting those sources and write "bullshit," "illogical," "dubious," "nonsense," "controversial," "obsolete," "outdated," "synthesis," "original research," "WP:OWN", "pumping his bullshit into the article." Read what I wrote, and read what Lembit Staan and Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus wrote, and what they did. It is very predictable. Then I insist the reliable sources, and all that follows on the topic suggests 2 + 2 = 4, then editors writing "bullshit," "illogical," "dubious," "nonsense," "controversial," "obsolete," "outdated", "synthesis," "original research," "WP:OWN", "pumping his bullshit into the article" decide to form a "consensus" that 2 + 2 = 9, and Exxess is belligerent, shows no desire to collaborate with others, displays a massive battleground mentality, and stubbornly believes that only his interpretation of facts is the correct one. He is not here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia, but to bludgeon everyone else into accepting his viewpoint, then I have to conclude Wikipedia is approaching Idiocracy. I justify that opinion on this basis:

Quoting: "Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and reflections of current published knowledge within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject."

Focus on this one - and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.

The majority of the time (99%), I am very civil. I do not want to waste time debating, but the circumstances of this situation called for a massive challenge. In the interest of neutrality, if I get blocked indefinitely, I will remain neutral, and I cite Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and this was a flagrant violation of we include all significant views on a subject.. Then, when I attempt to explain, I get told that is a violation of Wikipedia:Wall of text. In my THREE and ONLY THREE incidents of Wikipedia:Wall of text, it was only the last one with Lembit Staan that I decided to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade, per his statement on a community talk: "This user [Exxess] keeps pumping bullshit his own interpretations into the article:"

I agree I violated, but did I do anything wrong? I am not so sure. I was told by other editors to go to talk and "work it out." Then, I am told, "that is a wall of text."

But you mentioned stubbornly. Facts are very stubborn things, and this is fact - I am very stubborn about this:

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, a core policy. Quoting: "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.

Quoting: "Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and reflections of current published knowledge within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject."

I agree I violated, but did I do anything wrong? I see a flagrant violation of core policy, and I see a focus on style, not substance, but in the interest of neutrality, I do not give a flying intercourse. Edits will be challenged, and I challenged them, and I had every right to per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

Per The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite:

You stating the ban should be indefinite - I personally think you might be correct. I advocated for at least three months, but your idea might be the superior one.

It's nothing personal (Wikipedia:NEUTRAL). It's Wikipedia (Wikipedia:NEUTRAL). - Exxess (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Apology Expected

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and Lembit Staan, I expect an apology for the following violation of core policy and presuming bad faith on my part when your Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade knee-jerk edits and deletions were challenged:

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, a core policy. Quoting: "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.

Quoting: "Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and reflections of current published knowledge within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject."

Lembit Staan: 'I have never seen a definition "Szlachta was Polish electorate".' See Royal elections in Poland. I rest my case.

Do not worry. I am not going to take it up the chain of command. You will do that. - Exxess (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Lembit Staan - "I feel I will have to go in a hard way of the procedure of formal dispute resolution for each and every dubious statement this user introduced. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)"

I do not think you are going to prevail against Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and Wikipedia:Citation underkill, but, I am looking forward to how you are going to improve the article. You are the only editor making these claims. I am very curious about how you are going to prevail against the secondary sources.

What you are claiming has been tried before.

I want you to read a quote about the Szlachta article:

"This used to be the best article on 'aristocracy' on WP, and you literally just murdered it. 174.95.203.52 (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)"

Read it yourself: Talk:Szlachta/Archive_2#Readability

Hope Your Day Is Great and Happy Editing - Exxess (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

presuming bad faith on my part - please explain how you figured out that I am presuming bad faith. I didn't challenge your knowledge, nor your behavior (I've met quite a few "mad professors" in wikipedia, who got quite excited when challenged. In fact, any old-timer Wikipedian would confirm that in early days of Wikipedia nearly all experts got frustrated very quickly when confronted with amateur editors.) I challenged the way you apply your knowledge to wikipedia, namely WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, i.e., you are reading from sources more than written there. Lembit Staan (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Lembit Staan, I have a username to live up to - Exxess. Keep doing great work, and the challenging is good. Try to destroy my logic. Kill any and all stupidity with extreme prejudice. - Exxess (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That is a joke, some humor. - Exxess (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Because of the lengthy walls of text that you have recently posted, none of which resembles an unblock request or discusses your intention to refrain from personal attacks, I have withdrawn your talk page access. WP:UTRS is available to you. If you resume personal attacks when your block expires, you will be blocked again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —valereee (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

User:BrownHairedGirl has gotten User:Piotrus' panties in a bunch. User:BrownHairedGirl stated facts about User:Piotrus, or else User:Piotrus would not have felt offended. User:BrownHairedGirl makes arguments similar to mine contra User:Piotrus. I require building consensus with User:BrownHairedGirl in regards to attempts to render User:BrownHairedGirl defenseless. User:BrownHairedGirl's statement of facts is precise and rigorous in regards to wrongdoer User:Piotrus. Exxess (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not seem to be an unblock request. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:46, 14 August 2021 (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.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Piotrus'_concerns_about_User:BrownHairedGirl, where User:Piotrus references me as a "case study."

CORRECTION: User:Piotrus references me as a "case study" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BrownHairedGirl

What a waste of Wikipedia resources, courtesy of User:Piotrus, as in, defend User:Piotrus' toxic ego investment in Wikipedia, rather than disseminate knowledge.

Per BrownHairedGirl: "Piotrus, you are back playing your old switch-and-evade game, and using your usual sleazy, gaslighting technique of bogus allegations... your demand for sources is nothing more than a transparently bad faith attrition strategy. For whatever reason, you are engaged in a bizarre form of historical denialism in which you use a succession of WP:GAMINing techniques... The only IDONTLIKEIT here is your sustained and disgustingly ill-mannered attempts to deny that reality."

BrownHairedGirl has my consensus on the above, which pretty much echoes my objections in my so-called "incident."

My so-called "incident" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1067#Very_inappropriate_attitude_on_talk_(violates_NPA,_CIV,_BATTLEGROUND)

@BrownHairedGirl: Exxess (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Exxess (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: It is an unblock request. I never did anything wrong, just as User:BrownHairedGirl is asserting she never did anything wrong, and the commonality is User:Piotrus. The issues in her so-called "incident" are the same as the issues in my so-called "incident," so kindly unblock me, so I may jump into the fray. I want to build consensus with BrownHairedGirl. Her statements regarding User:Piotrus are uncannily nearly precisely mine. - Exxess (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that I will. Looking into the situation it seems you left very little choice other than this block. Your most recent comment on makes me more confident it is needed. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I had three months to reconsider, and I remain unpersuaded I did anything wrong, all things considered, which never were. Paraphrasing BrownHairedGirl, "I stand by my words," and she mentioned something about "grovelling" as it pertains to unblock requests. Observing BrownHairedGirl's current so-called "incident" further convinces me I did nothing wrong, and I can see User:Piotrus continues to bring out the best in everyone. Picture perfect case of analysis paralysis, and turning Wikipedia into building some kind of weird dweeb Utopia instead of focusing on disseminating knowledge. It's quite amusing to observe. User:Piotrus got called a "troll" and now his trifling gripe goes to ArbCom. What a waste of Wikipedia resources. A word of advice - "Wikipedia has no firm rules", the fifth of the "five pillars", which summarize the site's "fundamental principles," that is Wikipedia editors should be bold. Err on the side of being bold and freedom to edit, instead of discouraging it. Ciao. - Exxess (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this sort of commentary is exactly why you were blocked. If you insist on continue using your talk page for the same thing then you will lose your talk page access. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Do what you think is necessary and proper, and misconstrue honest commentary how you will. Too many editors here trying to enforce the rules of charm school... Case in point, BrownHairedGirl's so-called "incident." The lengths that has gone to is ludicrously amusing. Err on the side of being bold and freedom to edit, instead of discouraging it. I noticed how some editors characterized as a "train wreck" User:Piotrus' "concerns" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Piotrus'_concerns_about_User:BrownHairedGirl

I give my consensus to that - what a train wreck indeed. A case of Shylock trying to exact his pound of flesh...

You know it and I know it, blocking me did me a favor. Current case in point, an editor gets called a "troll," so another productive editor (BrownHairedGirl) has to face summary execution in a constructive manner for her accurate assessment, all things considered. I do not see any incivility in her assessment. It's pretty obvious to me the problem is not with BrownHairedGirl.

NOTE: FOR THE RECORD. - Exxess (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

UTRS 47018

UTRS appeal #47018 has been closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record If user does not change their tack, they will shipwreck on the shoals of a UTRS ban. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)