User talk:Zxgnarlz

July 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Manosphere, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive? I added unbiased information to the page to give deeper insight into the page topic. Zxgnarlz (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the article in a way that blatantly misrepresented what the cited sources were saying. MrOllie (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Abecedare (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About your fight(s)

Hey man! I saw what you're trying to do with the Manosphere page and I just want to thank you for fighting against biased, full of hatred towards men, sexist and of course misandrist people. Keep up the good work because that's how we stop the misconceptions and worst generalisations about all the good men in the world! I am with you! IGhostEdd (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made this account to answer to that too. It's pretty crazy that there are people who are so willing to call us names, even when we're trying to give nuance, even giving the tools for anyone to make their own opinions about these subjects.

They just want to hate and I'm disgusting seeing how it's accepted.

Thanks for what you've done, I think it's locked now ? But we should try to have an admin review the changes, we shouldn't let that happen. StarZax (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ignore the above two, they're blocked for disruption. ltbdl☃ (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries man, but I reckon I’m just one of many who have tried and failed to adjust the biased claims made about the Manosphere on “legitimate impartial informational sources” such as Wikipedia. All I did was made tweaks, whilst correcting allegations made about the manosphere that weren’t backed up with any kind of proof or evidence. Yet the tweaks I made were factually correct and they were rejected. You’d think it would make sense for a Wikipedia about “the Manosphere” to be doctored and altered to contain accurate information about “the manosphere” primarily by people who understand, have experienced, or have actual inside knowledge about what the Manosphere is. It’s like letting a 12 year old write a Wikipedia about algebra… You can imagine the 12 year old is going to put algebra in a bad light due to lacking knowledge, or interest, let alone if the 12 year old harboured negative or hateful emotions towards it also. Zxgnarlz (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s alright man, tried what I could but clearly the force is too strong. Even when the attempt was only to de-stigmatise how the Manosphere is perceived. But apparently the only cause which supports the improvement of men just so happens to also be labelled as “sexist, hateful, abusive and violent” yet the Wikipedia page stating it as so, can’t even provide any evidence to support it’s own claims yet these claims can’t be altered, amended or corrected? Just sounds like an oppressive regime trying to control the narrative of information to me. Zxgnarlz (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't belong here then. Our articles report what sources we deem reliable say, that's all. Editors are not allowed to do any analysis themselves and can only stick to the sources. That's just the way we work. Maybe you should go write your own article on Conservapedia as it doesn't have one. Doug Weller talk 07:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]