User talk:StarZax

Welcome!

Hi StarZax, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello, StarZax, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Zxgnarlz (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What an absolute ridiculous statement. Is it because I thanked him for the contributions ? No, I don't know the person, I have no connection with anyone and I'm not coordinating with anyone outside Wikipedia. Therefore, there is absolutely no connection to be disclosed. StarZax (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "You feign to ignore that we know you are choosing which « experts »." Who's "we"? And "Got it. Up to us to distribute reliable sources". Who's "us"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Us refers to men's advocates, in a very broad term. StarZax (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So men's rights advocates "know" that Wikipedia editors are cherry-picking sources? How do they know this? From where? Please note that actively coordinating Wikipedia edits on outside forums is prohibited. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sangdeboeuf, this activity is due to a post on reddit yesterday. It's discussed on ANI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's how I was made aware of this. I've seen that you thought I was lying or something. I'm really not. I wouldn't have used the same nickname if I had this intention.

I have to admit I might have reacted a bit too much, but I haven't tried to edit. In fact, you helped me understand why it was written that way. Therefore, I'm not sure where's the wrongdoing.

I see that you and @Therealteal speculated on my stance or whatever. So I'll try to make it more clear :

When I say that it's about the numbers, it's not a call to takedown whatever. What I meant is what I already told you : Have our stance be more « acceptable », adopted by more people, so that more sources could be produced. Not the other way around. I have said that « it's about numbers » because men's liberation isn't really a widely adopted stance (and I was obviously speaking in a specific subreddit). I did not mean that we should modify Wikipedia for this to happen, but that Wikipedia was more meant to be reflective of « how the world is », therefore if we want to « modify » Wikipedia then that should be through tangible work.

I'm sorry for having been a bit emotional about it as I thought this was a case of injustice, but your guidelines helped me understand what could push things forward, and what wouldn't. Understanding that this wasn't a case of injustice pushed me into trying to understand why things were written that way, and I think that because of my past behavior, my later words were understood differently. Which I can understand, but that's why I want to make things clear.

There's no « recruiting » going on, it was just some post that caused some stupid outrage which I've fallen victim to. I have 0 contact with anyone on Reddit, again, if I were and had genuine bad attempts, I would have, at the very least, tried to hide. That's why I've asked genuine questions afterward.

If you still have doubts about my goodwill, then please let me know, when I'm sure to understand what I am being accused of I might make an appeal as I am willing to try to contribute as I've done in other collaborative projects in the past. StarZax (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Therealteal (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:03, 22 August 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I took some time to understand the situation. I admit I got emotional and accused people of cherry-picking before understanding the guidelines. I want to make it clear that I had no intent of « stealth canvassing » as I chose the same name account as I do in other websites and I also have absolutely 0 contact with anyone with the intent of editing wikipedia. I think that I can contribute while putting aside my personal beliefs that I can share on other social media, but I admit that I had no intention of doing so when coming here in the first place, as I thought this was a situation of injustice. Now that I understand that it is not, I know that I behaved impulsively, and I sincerely apologize. As I stated in another post, my stance is that if I want my personal opinions to be more widely accepted, it's through real, tangible work, and not through vandalism on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia strives to reflect serious work on various topics about the world, and not the other way around, ie not to influence. Reading through the guidelines helped me understand that what first looked like an injustice was actually about enforcing clearly stated rules. This impulsive behavior does not reflect my own character and will not happen again. I have many interests and there are pages I could contribute to, especially when it comes to translation. I wish to keep the possibility to add a useful contribution, that's why I'm here now and therefore, I apologize for my past behavior. Thank you very much. StarZax (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Sangdeboeuf stated, "Interesting. Based on (Redacted), their claim I'm not coordinating with anyone outside Wikipedia seems to be a bald-faced lie." I believe this to be in reference to your claim, which you restate here. Yamla (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2024 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

To the Wikipedia Admins, After thoroughly reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines on Meatpuppetry, which seems to be the basis of the allegations against me, I want to clarify that there was no intent on my part to recruit or coordinate with anyone outside of Wikipedia. The situation arose when those edits were shared externally and misrepresented in a way that led to unnecessary outrage, which I unfortunately became entangled in. I now realize that my initial reaction to the reverts was misguided. My response was driven by a misunderstanding, and I can see how it may have been perceived as an attempt to solicit external support, which was never my intention. In fact, as evidenced by my comments on Reddit, my first instinct was to ask how to contact an administrator to address what I believed to be an error, not to rally others to take action. If I had been acting on behalf of someone else, or coordinating with others, I wouldn't have used my regular username. I now understand that my actions were impulsive and very unwise, I regret the confusion and harm they may have caused. I am trully sorry for any distress my actions may have caused and for any impression that I was attempting to manipulate the situation. I also realize that my comments about « numbers » might have been misinterpreted. I have multiple difficulties conveying what I am trying to say, not only in my native language but even more so in English. While I strive daily to overcome this challenge, I fully accept responsibility for any minsunderstandings. What I intended to convey was that Wikipedia reflects the broader consensus on topics, particularly when this is supported by substantial academic and scintific research. My intent was not to change the page unilaterally, or to recruit people to do so and build a « fake consensus », but to understand how to align with Wikipedia's standards. More precisely, I was not suggesting that « we need more people modifying Wikipedia », but rather that ideas should be more widely accepted through the production and sharing of quality sources. Wikipedia's role is to reflect the state of contentious topics using credible sources, not to influence them. This message has been written after Sangdeboeuf kindly explained and shared with me some of the guidelines related to consensus and reliable sources. Althought I initially wrote this message shortly after receive those explanations, my emotions were still high at that moment and that affected the clarity of my writing. Therefore, I decided to take a few days to reflect on my past behavior and this has helped me understand the situation better and how to prevent similar issues in the future. I sincerely apologize for my past behavior, and I understand how it may have caused offense. This experience has been a valuable lesson in how easily one can be drawn into extreme reactions over contentious topics. I am committed to learning from this and would appreciate the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia, not just on controversial topics, but across a range of subjects. Thank you for considering my appeal. Best regards, StarZax StarZax (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only as two weeks has passed without a response to Elli's questions below. Please repost this appeal, along with a ping to Elli (like this: {{ping|Elli}}) when you return to editing. Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:42, 27 September 2024 (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.

What topics would you like to edit about? I'm amenable to this request, with the condition that you're topic-banned from the WP:GENSEX area. Is that a condition you'd be okay with? Elli (talk | contribs) 18:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]