User talk: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite:

Wikipediocracy: Because you can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia

Well, there it is. NOTE: Visit the link above several times, if required until seeing that exact verbiage. - Exxess (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Wikipediocracy: Because you can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia

Well, there it is. NOTE: Visit the link above several times, if required until seeing that exact verbiage. - Exxess (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)"[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[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).

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)[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.

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

UTRS 47018

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

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)[reply]

TPA restored

Following UTRS appeal #102819. Reviewing admins should note other previous UTRS appeals. -- asilvering (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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:

Greetings and Salutations, Wikipedia. i continue to be blocked from Friday, May 15, 2021. i was blocked by community consensus, determined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1067#Very_inappropriate_attitude_on_talk_(violates_NPA,_CIV,_BATTLEGROUND). Some particulars and peculiar of the block exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Szlachta/Archive_5#Wikipedia:No_original_research;_Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. Despite my being extremely meticulous with citing, and over-citing sources in that peculiar Wikipedia article, comments such as these were posted: "No it is not. This user [Exxess] keeps pumping bullshit his own interpretations into the article: More precisely, the szlachta were not a nobility nor a gentry, but an electorate. Really? I keep repeating that edits of this user [Exxess] must be monitored. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)" - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta. "<sigh> For God's sake, really? Nobody has a say against all this illogical rambling [by Exxess]? Shall I file WP:RFC for very nonsense this guy [Exxess] introduced? (Coming back there in 2 months). Lembit Staan (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)" - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Szlachta. In response, i began to treat as Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade, even though Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Call_a_spade_a_spade) is not Wikipedia policy. i joined Wikipedia on Saturday, May 26, 2007. Looking at my Wikipedia history, i do not think i am a contentious Wikipedian. i attempt to be meticulous with citing sources, to the point of over-citation. i understand what i was blocked for. i will not treat as Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade, since it leads to battleground behavior. i will also use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution) instead of tussling with editors. Cordially, Exxess (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You say you understand what you were blocked for, but in two months, no administrator has been able to see that in this unblock request. asilvering (talk) 10:15, 13 July 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.

Exxess (talk) 21:18, 5 May 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).

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

Request reason:

Greetings and Salutations, Wikipedia. i continue to be blocked from Friday, May 15, 2021. i was blocked by community consensus, determined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1067#Very_inappropriate_attitude_on_talk_(violates_NPA,_CIV,_BATTLEGROUND). Some particulars and peculiars of the block exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Szlachta/Archive_5#Wikipedia:No_original_research;_Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. Per the decline of a previous unblock request, my understanding of why i was blocked is i contravened Wikipedia's harassment policy, by writing pejorative words about editors Lembit Staan, and Piotrus, amounting to personal attacks, which i also understand interferes with maintaining the congeniality required to build an encyclopedia. i will use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution) if required, and necessary and proper, instead of writing pejorative words about editors. Cordially, Exxess (talk) 11:52 pm, 24 August 2025, Sunday (17 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

This is an improvement over the prior request, but I still see some issues that make me think that it would not yet be appropriate to pose this to the community for consideration. In particular, I'm not seeing any acknowledgment of editors' concerns regarding concision, and I don't think simply pointing to WP:DR is a persuasive promise to engage with disputes constructively: I would have liked to have seen an actual explanation of what you intend to do in the event of an editing conflict, not just name dropping a relevant policy page, which contains a lot of different advice and procedures for various situations. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:24, 11 September 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.

NOTICE: This is an excruciatingly detailed reframing of what led to this incident, which I would characterize as not limiting my case, by way of necessity to get it all in at once, in the Realm of Common Sense, since at any moment, I'm always under threat of having the ability to edit removed, in pursuit of my opposers, who enjoy opportunistic abundance, to stop me dead in my tracks, by claiming Wikipedia:Walls of text, and "disruptive editing", or whatever other policy violations they conjure up that seem plausible. A case can be made Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are a Wikipedia:Wall of text. Recognizing the People of Wikipedia have the right to refuse service to anyone, and the People of Wikipedia have the right to associate with whom they will, and further understanding enjoying the benefits of Wikipedia requires shouldering the burdens of Wikipedia, this reframing is a little uppity. I made a major mistake shortly before this began. This is not a justification, nor am I attempting to shift all blame upon other editors.

Hello @Rosguill:, thanks for the thoughtful and considerate decline. Given the mention of concision (conciseness), with the intent of improving Wikipedia (Etiam si regulae Vicipaediae violantur, permittamus eas emendari), I'll get to the conclusion first, then I'll support it, the conclusion being I know a Wikipedian has nothing less than an infinite capacity to suffer fools, but Common Sense existed long before Wikipedia, and Common Sense will exist long after Wikipedia, and Common Sense will in the end prevail, and sometimes employing Common Sense is far more beneficial than wearing the persona of a Wikipedian. Common Sense will now appear with the Glorious Simplicity of the Sun to banish the Darkness of the shady way this incident was framed. This is becoming a fairly ludicrous situation, which began with me citing the Encyclopædia Britannica referencing the szlachta (Polish nobility) as an electorate^[1], along with there being a Wikipedia article regarding Polish Royal Elections (note Polish word "elekcja"), where it is stated the Polish nobility elected their kings for centuries, and because I wrote in that peculiar Szlachta article the Szlachta was an electorate, as cited by the sources, one editor, Lembit Satan writes, "No it is not. This user [Exxess] keeps pumping bullshit his own interpretations into the article: More precisely, the szlachta were not a nobility nor a gentry, but an electorate. Really? I keep repeating that edits of this user [Exxess] must be monitored. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)"[reply]

Quoting from the Wikipedia article Royal elections in Poland (which I've never touched):

"The elections reinforced the empowerment of the electorate (the nobility) [emphasis courtesy of Exxess], as the contender to the throne would increasingly consider issuing promises that he undertook to fulfil in the event of a successful election."

Quoting again from the Wikipedia article Royal elections in Poland:

"The tradition of electing the country's ruler, which occurred either when there was no clear heir to the throne, or to confirm the heir's appointment, dates to the very beginning of Polish statehood." [emphasis courtesy of Exxess]

Quoting historian of szlachta descent Adam Zamoyski:

"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." ^[2] [emphasis courtesy of Exxess]

Common Sense shows Lembit Staan just got precisely, rigorously, and mercilessly clobbered, like an ant, directing a crane, from below, said ant having had a 12-ton cargo container dropped on it, when a truss snapped, with the resulting wrath of that editor confronting their own incompetence, and refusal to bow to reason, and the obvious, and significant views, and reliable sources, projected onto me, no personal attacks required on my part, my knowing "incompetence" is a "bad," and "dangerous" word on Wikipedia. However, let's not indulge any more third-rate versions of Reality, too often passed off as so-called Civility, in the interests of preserving the Sanity of as many people as possible. I could not be anymore uncivil towards this editor than they were to themselves. That's Common Sense, with the chief enemies of high-quality Wikipedia articles being mental sloth, conformity, bigotry, superstition, credulity, monopoly in the market of ideas, and utter, benighted ignorance. That leads us to editor Piotrus claiming nobody can be reasonably expected to read such repetitive things, such as the quotes above, injected into an article's Talk page.

Amidst all this shifting terminology, necessitated by attempts to find English terms somewhat equivalent to aid understanding of Polish terms, and Polish history, by people unfamiliar with Poland, the one thing that's always been a fact, since the beginnings of Polish statehood, is the szlachta elected their rulers, so the English word "electorate" conveys precisely what the szlachta were (refer to Polish word "elekcja")^[1], that is, an elite, who elected their rulers.^[1]

It's the verifiable edits, and responses,^[1]^[2] of mine like the above (Szlachta was an electorate), dismissed by editor Lembit Staan as "bullshit", "illogical rambling", and "nonsense" (that editor's choice of words), Lembit Staan thanked by others in "the community" for "not giving up", with said verifiable responses of mine like the above, similar to that which I introduced on that peculiar Szlachta article's Talk page, supported by no less than a Wikipedia article on the subject, that got met with the response of editor Piotrus in the form of his bogus claims of Wikipedia:Walls of text of irrelevance, or Lembit Staan's bogus claims of Wikipedia:Ownership of content, because I, discovering Poland, pushed back on the blatant incompetence, and the pigheaded, and unreasonable, defense of said incompetence (verging on gross negligence), by countering the folly of dismissing reliable sources (reliable sources the firmament overarching Wikipedia), because editors Piotrus and Lembit Staan could not face, nor dismiss the fact, they could not be more wrong, which included personally attacking me, and Prokonsul Piotrus, not bashful in employing the gauntlet, thinking he was hitting someone with a big stick, per his own words, in regards to this situation, when I pushed back in a way that editors Piotrus and Lembit Staan did not like, but finally understood, since being reasonable, and discussion, failed. The mind boggles at the travesty. This is despite these editors' attempts to dismiss, and ignore, what the sources state, which I defer to^[1]^[2], not these two editors, because these two editors could not be more wrong. It's uncharitable, but it's a fact, and I've got consensus with the academics outside of Wikipedia on that fact. See previous paragraphs and references above this paragraph.^[1]^[2].

Lembit Staan personally attacked me, and no one cared, so I wrote pejorative words about Lembit Staan, and suddenly, everyone cared. What options were left in the face of all this lunacy, considered from the vantage point of philosophical equanimity? Getting Requests for Comments on the obvious, because the obvious was not persuasive enough, and getting Requests for Comments on the fact the Szlachta were an electorate, an elite electing their rulers, which has been a fact known for centuries scholars still write about?^[1] It does not seem that fact is changing anytime soon, despite Lembit Staan's personal attacks on me, and his publicly heralded inability to comprehend that fact.^[1]^[2] By deferring to the sources, and not capitulating to the quick-and-dirty misconceptions, and incompetence, of these two editors, I thereby, according to these two editors, for all intents and purposes, violated nearly every possible permutation and combination of Wikipedia policies, after their throwing every false claim against the wall to see what stuck, by way of casting my responses in a false light. It's obvious being reasonable, by repeating what was fact and obvious for centuries, including on Wikipedia itself, profoundly simple as that was, and is, was not getting through - see previous paragraphs and references above this paragraph.^[1]^[2]

It's very simple, and a very simple fact really triggered a lot of animosity, outrage, and wrath, in Lembit Staan. I never sensed much resistance, nor disapproval, from "the community", in regards to this peculiar Szlachta article, until editor Lembit Staan appeared, but that is only a nebulous hunch, which could be far from the facts. Some of my previous edits were deleted, with an explanation as to why on the article's Talk page, and I accepted those deletions, with no incidents such as this.

In regards to reliable sources quoted far above^[1]^[2], attempting to clarify was characterized as disruptive so-called "Walls of text" filled with irrelevance, but I cannot shake the hunch it was all an attempt to teach me a lesson my editing is not perfection, to buttress notions of the pecking order amongst the People of Wikipedia, by way of the gauntlet, and by stifling discussion, in the face of inconvenient facts, supported by reliable sources^[1]^[2], which clobbered two editors' assertions. Not calling a spade a spade, and giving the above bogus claims the name they deserve, but rather, I'll just write it's absurd, to put it very mildly, and their bogus claims were no more than ducking, and deflecting, from the issue of two editors just being beyond wrong. By way of the gauntlet, watching the knee-jerk bloodlust of editors and administrators on this Talk page, and in the ANI discussion was amusing, along with considering the hopes of editor Piotrus that I learn something from his attempts at hosting a blanket party. What I'm learning, and the conclusions I'm reaching are not what editor Piotrus had in mind, and of that, I'm fairly certain. I'm thinking of the fiction of an Orwellian Two Minutes Hate against Winston Smith (Nineteen Eighty-Four), versus the facts. I never rested my case, nor was I allowed to, which leads us to corroborating I'm not grinding an ax on the basis of a personal gripe, and I'm indulging more than being frivolous, because apparently, there is an army out there publishing the likes of the following:

Wikipediocracy: Because you can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia

Well, there it is, a contemporary website comporting with Erasmus uncharitably stating the essence of humanity is stupidity. NOTE: Visit the link above several times, if required until seeing that exact verbiage ("Because you can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia"). To quote Wikipedia, "Wikipedia has no firm rules" ("If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."), and "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." I was bold, and I made an exception in the case of editors Piotrus and Lembit Staan, given the exceptional incompetence. I quote from the talk page of editor Piotrus, "It's simple: Remain neutral, Don't be a dick, Ignore all rules" (Is Prokonsul Piotrus conceding, "Etiam si regulae Vicipaediae violantur, permittamus eas emendari"?). Again, to quote Wikipedia, "Wikipedia has no firm rules", and "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." My Wikipedia history since 2007 shows it's very rare I make that exception, as my history shows 99% of my edits are productive. My edits are very, very rarely confronted, or challenged, with the likes of the incompetence pointed out above, because my conduct is motivated by improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia. Editors Lembit Staan, and Piotrus, are the only two editors I've written anything pejorative about, because I understand the value of sticking to addressing content, rather than personally attacking editors, but "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." - Exxess (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'The community, and in particular the administrative and arbitration corps, care primarily about the functioning of the Wikipedia "organs", like content creation and source checking; any individual cell (i.e., you) causing inflammation, for whatever reason, is a cancer to be removed.'

Who spent too much time in their basement, hands on a grimy computer keyboard, eating stale Cheetos, having a fragrance not unlike their feet, while wearing their Wikipedian costume, feeding those delusions of dictatorial power, pretending to be Nurse Ratched caring for a multitude of Randle McMurphys, or King George III dealing with uppity American colonists, because their Mom concluded they were too psychopathic, with too much of a weird glandular problem, to allow going trick-or-treating? What is the above dick-tatorial delusion demonstrating? An example of making a Wikipedian an unperson? "Inflammation"? Try mutation, and adaptation, in response to degenerate dick-tatorial pressure, said mutation, and adaptation, in furtherance of progress ensuring Wikipedia survives.

My time with editor Piotrus goes back to this time, and I've pushed back on some of the sloppy tactics of editor Piotrus (who has been sanctioned for his own behavioral issues):

"Until recently, citation and sourcing were not common practice for Wikipedia articles. During 2005 and 2006, citation went from a relatively uncommon practice to being considered de rigueur."

From what appears whenever editing any Wikipedia page, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources." ... I'm following the very foundation of what an encyclopedia is established upon, and tracing a firmament which overarches Wikipedia, beyond administrators, and editors, and beyond Wikipedia itself - citing verifiable sources^[1]^[2], for which I was personally attacked, but editor Piotrus rallies to the side of Lembit Staan, Piotrus an interloper in the spirited correspondence Lembit Staan (a resilient, and rambunctious, editor) and I were having, said interference bringing us here. I could care less about the "justice" of the situation, or the "fairness" of the situation, or the personal attack on me, but that is prodigious incompetence at its best, being attacked for citing verifiable sources, which is hard to overlook, and to quote Wikipedia, "... sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.", like in the case of trying to be civil, and reasonable^[1]^[2], and engage discussion, with editors Piotrus, and Lembit Staan. That is my response to concerns about conciseness.

Immediately prior to this, another editor, not liking what a particular citation stated, because it was their personal belief that source would "mislead" people, also personally attacked me, but I refrained from responding with counter-personal attacks. I put in a request for Formal Mediation, which was rejected. The situation was resolved via Third Opinion, and Requests for comment, no personal attacks on my part. My Wikipedia history does not demonstrate egregiously, or gratuitously, personally attacking editors, but the sloppy incompetence in this peculiar situation, and the defense of it, was over-the-top. - Exxess (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, being precise about matters, there was no "dispute" with editors, matters being more about editor Lembit Staan being dumbfounded, confounded, irascible, truculent, and obstinately refusing to concede to reason in a manner verging on gross negligence, in the face of what's been obvious to the world for centuries.^[1] However, if one were to sloppily, and mistakenly, see matters in the light of a so-called "dispute", then Piotrus and Lembit Staan got precisely, and rigorously, clobbered, which explains their behavior. The Record, and I, pointed out they precisely, rigorously, and mercilessly, clobbered themselves, which explains their consternation with me. See far above in regards to the Polish nobility electing their rulers^[1]. What is there to dispute? Nothing. My citation regarding the Szlachta as an electorate is still in the Szlachta article. There was, and is, no basis for removing it. Again, this entire narrative was framed by Piotrus because I challenged the gross incompetence, and the defense of it. If memory serves correct, Piotrus sloppily framed the matter in terms of "winning". Win what? Stating what has been obvious for centuries, and is reflected in authoritative sources, the reward being wasting far too much time dancing a clumsy, undeserved, too-many-left-feet Tango with gross incompetence verging on gross negligence? Piotrus mentioned something about not using "obsolete sources" prior to World War II. It's obvious the Encyclopædia Britannica article was published long past World War II. The Supreme Court of the United States references Webster's 1828 Dictionary, and Magna Carta (1215). So much for so-called "obsolete sources" in the mind and logic of editor Prokonsul Piotrus ... Where was the "dispute" with editors? Pointing out the obvious, supported by reliable sources, evidencing significant views, was controversial?^[1] - Exxess (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again, @Rosguill:, to summarize the above, from my point of view, in regards to citing sources, which I am meticulous about to the point of over-citation (without which Wikipedia's survival as an encyclopedia is threatened with extinction, and citing authoritative, reliable sources being like garlic to vampires in the face of those who are irascible, truculent, petulant, dumbfounded, confounded, and defiant in the presence of the reasonable^[1], strange and unfamiliar as it is in their consideration), the bigger concern is the incompetence displayed and tolerated (see above), and defended. And since I pointed it out, it is time to ask the question, "Who was really attacking whom?" The sources required particular editors to re-think, and discuss, almost to the point of remedial education, and compensatory education, certain things, much of it obvious to most of the world^[1]^[2], but instead of spending any time doing that, it was easier to re-frame this as something it never was, by way of bogus claims of so-called "walls of text" by Piotrus, and Lembit Staan, and also by way of Lembit Staan writing, "No it is not. This user [Exxess] keeps pumping bullshit his own interpretations into the article: More precisely, the szlachta were not a nobility nor a gentry, but an electorate. Really? I keep repeating that edits of this user [Exxess] must be monitored. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)". I will take into consideration what you've written in your courteous decline, for another unblock request. - Exxess (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Lembit Staan complained about my "repetitive" so-called "walls of text" seemingly "deterring" the community, because Lembit Staan does not understand the subject matter as infallibly as that editor previously thought^[1]^[2], it being a given no possibility existed the community was deterred by Lembit Staan being wrong, it being a simple, and obvious, matter of me pumping that peculiar Szlachta article with my "bullshit" (to use editor Lembit Staan's word). Nobody from the community rallied to that editor's position ("This user [Exxess] keeps pumping bullshit his own interpretations into the article ..."). Then editor Lembit Staan makes the presumption that editor "will have to go in a hard way of the procedure of formal dispute resolution for each and every dubious statement this user introduced."^[1]^[2]. Lembit Staan was very confident about eliminating significant views, evidenced in reliable sources, on centuries of fact.

I asked for a much longer block than the one week block I originally got. It's been over four years since I've edited any article on Wikipedia. How is nothing for concise? Is annihilation, oblivion, and self-immolation, and having the substance of Shadow, enough to stop "the community" from feeling deterred? Is that evidence of my ever claiming so-called "ownership" of that peculiar Szlachta article, Lembit Staan's assertion of my so-called "ownership" being Lembit Staan's camouflage for missing the obvious?^[1] That is the lengths I had to go to counter bogus claims, since making my case was severely limited, unlike my opposer, editor Prokonsul Piotrus, who had opportunistic abundance to make his own case, an imbalance editor Prokonsul Piotrus had full personal knowledge of, having been on Wikipedia since 2004, and an imbalance, and running of the gauntlet, editor Prokonsul Piotrus played to his advantage. I got waylaid, for all intents and purposes. Lembit Staan had plenty of time for his chance to go after "each and every dubious statement this user introduced."^[1]^[2]. My citation regarding the Szlachta as an electorate is still in the Szlachta article, as are a large majority of my citations. That is not my ego. It's the strength of the significant views on the subject, evidenced in reliable sources.

NOTE: Since becoming a Wikipedia editor on May 26, 2007, there are only TWO editors, Lembit Staan, and Piotrus, I have ever written anything pejorative about, as evidenced here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1067#Very_inappropriate_attitude_on_talk_(violates_NPA,_CIV,_BATTLEGROUND)

If that claim is false, then present the facts showing the falseness of that claim. Editor Piotrus went on a comprehensive fishing expedition, and editor Piotrus did not catch much, because I understand the value in not personally attacking editors.

The other editor complaining about conciseness is Piotrus, and this entire narrative was framed by Piotrus, in an attempt to stifle discussion, because that editor thinks in terms of "winning," with the verifiable sources making that editor feel like they were mercilessly clobbered, followed up with that editor asserting, and jumping to, dubious conclusions. It's not Piotrus-pedia. Centuries of fact are supposed to be reduced to the length of a Twitter tweet, per Piotrus' taste. In my opinion, the centuries of the subject matter of the Szlachta is somewhat beyond the comprehension of editors Piotrus and Lembit Staan, and the subject is nuanced^[2], and detailed, but these two editors, when they get impatient with anyone challenging their incompetence, and their quick-and-dirty conceptions of this subject, start with the personal attacks, and bogus claims of so-called "Walls of text", and so-called "Ownership" of the article. Once again, as I've stated consistently, if there is going to be error, it should be erring on the freedom to edit. It boils down to this - Piotrus made claims, and Piotrus was negligent in regards to what he left out, and some of his claims were false, and Lembit Staan - the incompetence, and obliviousness, in this instance, boggles the mind.^[1]^[2] From my Wikipedia history, there is no one else involved in a situation like this with me. All worth noting ... If that means banishment from contortions of the mind too terrible to contemplate, and the chains and shackles of a third-rate version of reality, too often passed off as so-called civility, into the bliss and country air and freedoms of Common Sense, then so it must be. - Exxess (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just letting you know that I'm travelling at the moment with limited Internet access and do not have the bandwidth to respond to this thoroughly. I would suggest filing another unblock request for another admin to consider. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Rosguill:. I will not be filing another unblock request for some time, but in that unblock request I will address a major mistake I made shortly before this began, which, unfortunately has led to far too much protraction on my part. I'm reframing the situation. This is not a justification, nor am I attempting to shift all blame, or accusation of incompetence, upon editors Piotrus and Lembit Staan. My ineptitude is the major factor in quite a bit of all this. All blocking was necessary and proper. I requested a much longer block than the original block. Had I spotted the major mistake I made far earlier, a lot of unnecessary strident rancor would have been avoided, and I have a very strong hunch very little of this would have ever occurred, if at all. - Exxess (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v ^w Davies, Ivor Norman Richard; Dawson, Andrew Hutchinson; Jasiewicz, Krzysztof [in Polish]; Kondracki, Jerzy Aleksander [in Polish]; 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.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p Zamoyski, Adam (1998) [1987]. The Polish Way: A Thousand-year history of the Poles and their culture (Fourth Printing ed.). New York: 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.

[szlachta-an-electorate-1] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v ^w Davies, Ivor Norman Richard; Dawson, Andrew Hutchinson; Jasiewicz, Krzysztof [in Polish]; Kondracki, Jerzy Aleksander [in Polish]; 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.

[zamoyski-not-gentry-not-nobility-2] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p Zamoyski, Adam (1998) [1987]. The Polish Way: A Thousand-year history of the Poles and their culture (Fourth Printing ed.). New York: 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.

[1]

[2]