|
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)
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,
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)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)
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.)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:22, 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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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:
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
—valereee (
talk) 10:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)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:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Piotrus'_concerns_about_User:BrownHairedGirl, where User:Piotrus references me as a "case study."
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: /info/en/?search=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)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
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)
|
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)
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,
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)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)
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.)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:22, 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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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:
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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
—valereee (
talk) 10:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)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:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Piotrus'_concerns_about_User:BrownHairedGirl, where User:Piotrus references me as a "case study."
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: /info/en/?search=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)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
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)