User talk:142.59.165.82: Difference between revisions

Hello, I reverted your edit to Gen Z protest. It is inadvisable to make such large edits without first discussing on the article’s talk page; Talk:Gen Z protests

Thanks, and happy editing! Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 13:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No such evidence of any kind exists to say that such a “Gen Z Protest” movement even exists, so why is a page spreading this kind of original research and misinformation even allowed to exist? 142.59.165.82 (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s simply not true, there’s plenty of evidence from reliable sources; ^[1][2][3][4]

I can understand disputing the name and the concept, but claiming there is no evidence at all is simply incorrect Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 13:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for just waving media labelling and not evidence. Where is the actual evidence and not just media labelling for their convenience. Wikipedia is NOT a news site and NOT a repeater of news outlets spin and labelling. Where is the actual evidence these random, unlinked, and unique circumstances are actually linked, when we are now reaching desperately to try and include Africa, Europe and Asia in to one weird blob, claiming all of a set generation are one homogenous blob. None of the media sources used, show anything beyond a nice convenient label. 142.59.165.82 (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not “media labelling”, it’s WP:RS. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 13:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources can spew out garbage. I really hate people thinking WP:RS overrides the need for the information to be unbiased, verifiable, and accurate. Just being in a reliable source is not a trump card to ram things in to an article or this encyclopaedia. This is a prime example of media outlets Wikipedia has deemed reliable having biased opinionated labelling glommed on to and being forced in to Wikipedia without doing any basic thinking about if the information is verifiable, accurate and unbiased. 142.59.165.82 (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really do think that the evidence shows otherwise. Please do make a note in the talk pages of articles before performing these changes. Thanks! Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 14:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then where is the evidence that some how protests in Bangladesh have anything to do with Protests is Serbia, and Madagascar. There is none, simply labelling it the same is not enough, they are over wildly different things, and wildly different circumstances. Additionally using just one generation in a claim is grotesquely inaccurate as it makes out no one else is involved, and all members of that generation are a homegonous blob. I guarantee you will not be able to find actual verifiable, unbiased linakges for this wide range of protests in a wide range of countries. Simply wanting to have a link and glomming on to labels by the media is not good enough for an encyclopaedia. 142.59.165.82 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No reply it seems 142.59.165.82 (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the issue has been dealt with Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 01:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it has not. 142.59.165.82 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf is “block evasion”? 142.59.165.82 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It means someone is trying to get around a block to continue the editing that is prevented by said block. GothicGolem29 19:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What block is being evaded?

I have no idea what block is being evaded. The reason given for this block is “block evasion” evasion of what block?

it’d be nice too know what I’m being accused of with some you know evidence before sentences are pronounced. A banana republic would be embarrassed by this kind of carry on. 142.59.165.82 (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I do not know. GothicGolem29 23:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I’d really like to know because being stopped from editing just because is wrong. 142.59.165.82 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult Wikipedia:Administrators’_noticeboard/Incidents#Potential_POV_pushing_from_co-ordinating_users Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 01:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just claims and synthesis to assume as guilty before being given even the basics of a right of reply or even as explanation of the process. It seemingly is just ram through any old way to stop an opposing point which is not convenient. 142.59.165.82 (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And User_talk:NotGenZ#ANI note Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 01:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen this before……would be nice to have evidence before being found guilty of something……a kangaroo court functions better than this slap dash guilty at the start process. 142.59.165.82 (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW I believe you forgot to add a block template to this page. If I’m wrong I apologise Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 23:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This all feels very heavy handed and insular. 142.59.165.82 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia arbitration processes can feel pretty brutal to the respondent party / victim. For new contributors they can sometimes function as retribution for taking the Be bold advice at face value.

On the substantive issue, though, the evidence is tht you are mistaken. The term “Gen Z protest” seems not to be an artefact of media reporting.

The references cited on the page here are from four reputable sources; the Time survey is helpful and worth looking at closely. It describes a series of national protests, in five different countries, originating in September and with the most recent two, in October, self-describing as Gen Z protests, in the titles of their social media accounts. 92.19.137.114 (talk) 11:10, 12 October 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).

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

---

Request reason:

There is no notice or informing of what the original block being evaded is. How can something not made known to someone then be used as a reason to go you are violating this? Additionally this notice is a significant time after the ban for alleged block evasion was imposed, which procedurally unfair as I have had no idea what this has actually been all about. I have therefore not been able to appeal this because until now not had a procedural mechanism to appeal through. Additionally, I have not and still do not know what the violation is allegedly for. There is no notice of a so called block anywhere or a link to the original so called block. Thus all feels very sloppy and unfair. Finally checking the logs why was one block for two weeks imposed and then 4 minutes later a second block for a month imposed. That seems arbitrary and capricious to just go yeah I’m just going to for no reason double the block length. At minimum a person needs to know what they are being accused of doing and at minimum known what the outcome is. 142.59.165.82 (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

---

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.

That is a truly dreadful reason. The discussion you are referring to was open and closed before any discussion or input was even possible. The whole ‘discussion’, If you want to call it that, was open for 6 hours. I’ve been in work meetings that lasted longer. It was purely decided to block before any discussion or even understanding could be engaged with. That is just arbitrary and capriciously throwing enforcement around as the first course of action. To cite that laughably short ‘discussion’ and ignore everything above is frankly something a banana republic would be embarrassed by. No wonder Wikipedia has a problem with its culture when it has such heavy handed hammer to crack a nut carry on. Coupled with screaming at new people to know how it all works instantaneously. What an absolute shit show of a carry on. I found this Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers which the behaviour of those involved here has clearly ignored wholeheartedly.

142.59.165.82 (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A reply to comments in an administrator’s closure of an unblock request belong outside the unblock template, not inside it. JBW (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It is understandable, and not particularly uncommon, for blocked editors to at first make the mistake of posting a reply inside the declined unblock message, but it is unhelpful, because it is not where other editors and administrators will expect a reply be, so they are unlikely to look for it there. I don’t remember ever before ever having seen anyone persistently repeating the same thing after it has been explained to them that it’s a mistake, and it is beyond me why anyone would choose to do so. If you still stubbornly persist in doing so, your ability to edit this talk page may be removed, but I hope you won’t choose to make that happen. JBW (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The reasons you have given address NONE of what I raised and how else do I get you to actually respond to them. You are acting like a tin pot dictator and should do the courtesy of responding writhing Wikipedia jargon and respond to the actual issues raised. It seans as if you should not be in a way able to hold any power in here with such acdrwsful attitude and ignoring of what is written.

  I expect one of two responses from you now:

  1. More Wikipedia jargon proclaiming nothing to see here

  2. Complete silence

  Either way you have been dreadful and just gone around as a bully attacking someone who doesn’t know how it works round here.

  You truly are one of the reasons why people want nothing to do with Wikipedia when they get treated like shit like this from a so called authority figure on this site.

  142.59.165.82 (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]