Donna's Cyborg
Donna's Cyborg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 162.211.34.180. So I've tried several methods to get this taken care over past like month and a half. Really hoping to get the attention of someone who can help me clear it up lol. Donna's Cyborg🏳️⚧️(talk)(contribs) 01:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Accept reason:
- EvergreenFir, you blocked this IP as a proxy quite some time ago; I'm not really seeing any technical signatures that would indicate that it is still functioning as such; would you be okay with me lifting the block? --Blablubbs (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Blablubbs Yes, thank you for asking. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Blablubbs thanks so much, you guys rock! Donna's Cyborg🏳️⚧️(talk)(contribs) 22:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Brief intro to reliable sources edit
I haven't edited Gun politics in the United States yet, so I'm unfamiliar with specific sources. I'll give you some general pointers though. I'd start with news articles if you're looking for reliable sources. However, not all news sources are reliable (e.g. National Enquirer). I'd stick with The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, AP. I'd stay away from the US TV networks, which tend to be more controversial. For an overview, I'd use books by respected authors (like journalists or academics) that have extensive sources (usually in the form of a long works cited section). Books published by universities are often reliable. In the same vein, academic articles published in peer reviewed journals are a good source of further, more intricate details. For examples of reliable sources, go look at the references section of a featured article with a variety of sources.
If you see some unreliable sources, see if you can replace them with reliable sources that support the info. If you can't find any, just add {{Verify credibility|failed=y}} after the </ref> tag of the unreliable reference.
–Temporal User (Talk) 11:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Donna's Cyborg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 192.168.4.21. I'm on a university laptop connected to my home network via wifi. I double checked that I wasn't accidently connected to a VPN and (1) apparently this thing doesn't even have one installed, which is actually slightly odd, and (2) I couldn't install one if I wanted to lol. Appreciate any help with getting unblocked, thanks! Donna's Cyborg (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That is not your Internet address. You can find your Internet address using a tool such as WhatIsMyIP. I have confirmed you are indeed using a proxy. You'll need to disable that and wait a full 24 hours for the block to clear. Yamla (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2022 (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.
Donna's Cyborg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ok, still a bit confused, because I'm certainly not *trying* to use a proxy lol, I'm not sure how one could accidently use a proxy and if I am I'm even less certain how to go about finding that out and disabling it. I do wonder if I screwed up by using my ISP's router app when getting my IP, since I'm now realizing that that's obviously an internal IP. Going to https://whatismyipaddress.com/ shows my IP as 162.211.34.180 and it claims (although maybe this is some sketchy marketing ploy?) that my "private information is exposed" and offers to sell me some service (presumably a VPN) to "Hide [my] IP address now". The ISP and geographic info it's giving me are also accurate. Also, my home connection is fiber. Not sure how that would matter and I'd assume the university is also on fiber, but figure the more info I can give you the better. Anyways, thanks for your time and any help would be greatly appreciated!
Edited for additional detail: while working from a coffee shop this morning and connected to their public wifi I was able to edit page just fine, so this is very confusing...
Donna's Cyborg (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline since your account is not blocked, therefore it cannot be unblocked. I suggest going to WP:IPECPROXY and following the instructions there to request IP block exemption so these proxy blocks will just be water off a duck's back. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2022 (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.
DS notification edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up! Is there a particular aspect of this policy that you feel I or others are in danger of running afoul of? Knowing that would be very helpful in ensuring these policies are respected.
- Donna's Cyborg (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- As written in the notification, the notice is not meant to imply that there are any issues with your contributions. Because you seem to have made relatively few edits to WP, and because you are editing and commenting extensively within a topic area considered pseudoscience/fringe science (i.e., Repressed memory and the associated Talk page), I believe such notification was appropriate. Although the list of policies is long, I suggest that you take a few minutes to review it (something that all editors should probably do every so often), and determine for yourself if any might/could/potentially/seemingly apply to some of your contributions. I am sorry if that answer seems evasive or opaque, but good-faith notifications of discretionary sanctions have a non-zero chance of rapidly mutating into "You are falsely accusing me of bad faith editing!" and because I am involved in the discussion I do not wish to increase that chance by explicitly suggesting hypotheticals. If you desire independent guidance, I suggest that you seek advice at The Teahouse, which truly is a friendly, welcoming place where experienced, non-involved editors can - and will - help answer your questions. Happy editing! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yup I saw that, just wanted to see if there was anything specific I can work on. Totally understand your concerns and appreciate the heads up! Donna's Cyborg (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- As written in the notification, the notice is not meant to imply that there are any issues with your contributions. Because you seem to have made relatively few edits to WP, and because you are editing and commenting extensively within a topic area considered pseudoscience/fringe science (i.e., Repressed memory and the associated Talk page), I believe such notification was appropriate. Although the list of policies is long, I suggest that you take a few minutes to review it (something that all editors should probably do every so often), and determine for yourself if any might/could/potentially/seemingly apply to some of your contributions. I am sorry if that answer seems evasive or opaque, but good-faith notifications of discretionary sanctions have a non-zero chance of rapidly mutating into "You are falsely accusing me of bad faith editing!" and because I am involved in the discussion I do not wish to increase that chance by explicitly suggesting hypotheticals. If you desire independent guidance, I suggest that you seek advice at The Teahouse, which truly is a friendly, welcoming place where experienced, non-involved editors can - and will - help answer your questions. Happy editing! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia 1A doesn't exist, sadly... edit
Hi, I just saw your exchange on the Teahouse. It's true: concision matters on Wikipedia. The more time you spend on Wikipedia, the more you will notice the optimal style of discussion posting. #1 is to leave all emotion out of it. There are indirect means of indicating that someone else may be at fault, some of them quite damning!:-))
For starters as a new editor, you should read the WP:Teahouse daily for at least a month. In addition to occasional entertaining squabbles, there are many examples of the right concision and emotional neutrality needed for good posting, mentions of important policies and guidelines (NPOV, BITE, WP:N, PROMO, RS, etc.) as well as good advice for a variety of inquiries.
Without having looked at the repressed memories article yet, I agree with your points. Articles in their early stages can lose their focus when edited by subsequent, overeager, editors. This happened a lot with material added, say, before 2010. Most of it has been found and resolved, but what you have found may be an overlooked case. See: WP:FORK.
Discussion page posts should be examined for excess trivia and lax organization prior to posting. Make as many paragraphs as necessary to enhance reader comprehension. Feel free to cut material and paste it at the end of your post, then reuse or delete as necessary. Don't be hesitant to use bullet points. I usually spend more time editing a post than writing it. Haste is rarely called for.
Anecdote: early on, I read and then proofread an article pertaining to kilns. It had overlink problems, with many short, familiar terms like "coal" and "wheat" wikilinked. After removing those useless links, some highly-strung editor "lost it", and raged at me for "removing 90% of the links", which I had in fact done. In fear, I waited about 10 years before going back to the article and unlinking all those common words yet again. My satisfaction was enormous. I don't suggest waiting that long, but time enables you to prepare a case which makes useful citations of Wikipedia's innumerable policies. Good luck.
P.S.: I sometimes find it much easier to look up a Wikipedia page using Google Advanced Search, rather than the search box in WP. Quisqualis (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Quisqualis This was super helpful and very encouraging, thank you so much!! Donna's Cyborg (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
September 2022 edit
Hello, Donna's Cyborg, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Quisqualis (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
Quisqualis (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Username edit
|
Username Accolades |
| I just wanted to drop in and say your username immediately brought me back to grad school. Haraway's writing still makes me want to cry. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
- Thank you so much! She's a big part of why I got into science & technology studies and kinda saved my love of science for me in a way? 😂 Donna's Cyborg (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Need help accessing articles edit
I am new to Wikipedia, so I apologize in advance if I am violating etiquette. I stumbled across your user talk page and thought I'd try my luck. Can you access these articles and share them with me? I don't know how exactly the sharing part works (does Wikipedia have DMs?), you'll have to tell me if there's anything I've got to do on my end. I've been dying to read these and would appreciate it immensely. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1942602X231223938
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1942602X231223940 Lurkern (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I’ll see what I can do! Donna's Cyborg🏳️⚧️(talk)(contribs) 22:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Here you go! Let me know if you have any trouble downloading them, I haven't shared from google drive like this before. Donna's Cyborg🏳️⚧️(talk)(contribs) 03:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)