User talk:Sciencearousal

Welcome

Hello, Sciencearousal, 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 facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

WP:MEDRS

Regarding this, I'm going to leave it in for now, but, like I stated with this edit, I "will trim this material in the future if I don't find WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for it." I don't just mean your sources; I mean any sources that are not WP:MEDRS-compliant. For what I mean regarding WP:MEDRS-compliant, read WP:MEDRS. WP:MEDRS, for example, discourages use of primary sources. See WP:Primary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this secondary source? http://www.realyourbrainonporn.com/research or this https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/why-are-we-still-so-worried-about-watching-porn.html? Each are scientists and doctors discussing the meaning of those studies.22:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I access wiki through proxy. I see the other user names listed with me, but I have no way to access them in the ways suggested in "appealing a block". No malicious editing or vandalism occurred, and there were days between edits that do not support SPAM intentions either.Sciencearousal (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't explain the results. We know you've been editing from the same IP address and the same computer as SecondaryEd2020, and editing the same pages. This is established. Yamla (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2019 (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.

Upon further investigation, it's very clear there's no mistake here. You are indeed NeuroSex, continuing to evade your block. --Yamla (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was zero transparency. To be clear to other readers, no support was provided for this determination, just anon editor claims with no process to appeal to others, provide documentation, etc. False claims of sockpuppetry harm Wikipedia, yet commonly occur with new users: https://www.science20.com/robert_walker/blocked_from_editing_wikipedia_last_straw_writing_about_nasas_science_goal_search_for_possible_habitats_for_life#zzee_link_12_1535217593 and a well-established transparency problem...literally the link I provided to show this gave a warning "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist." so desperate is wikipedia to hide these biased editor issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencearousal (talk • contribs)

You are clearly aware there's a process to appeal your block, as you have quite literally used this process, unsuccessfully, to appeal your block. --Yamla (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]