User talk:Mariecyber

 Hello, Mariecyber, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
 * The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Mariecyber, good luck, and have fun. Rosiestep (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Drought in the United Kingdom. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it.  MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Electronic harassment, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Electronic harassment was changed by Mariecyber (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.856993 on 2021-05-24T18:15:34+00:00 Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Your DRN request
Mariecyber, I wanted to respond to your DRN request a bit here to maybe help you out. First- please sign all your posts- you can do this by adding four "~" to the end of your posts. This helps other editors know who is talking. Second, I appreciate your wanting to help victims of any kind, but I think you are confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. As much as you have a noble purpose, it is not our purpose. Wikipedia exists to summarize the existing information as reported by reputable sources. That is all. We do not advocate, we do not do original research, and we do not exist as a counseling service for victims. There are many other places better equipped to do those things. So, I would recommend you go find a better place to be an advocate for Electronic Harassment. We do not need advocates here, we need unbiased editors. Unfortunately, the reliable sources, at the moment, support the idea that Electronic Harassment is a conspiracy theory. To change our position on that- you need to change the existing research/sources. So we need places like The New York Times, Reuters, Associated Press, or a University to give serious attention that shows the existence of such things. Your passion, while admirable, is not a source we can quote. Nor is your personal experience. That is original research, which we don't accept here. And, since you have a personal connection to this topic, we would prefer you not edit it, since you are inherently bias. You can request edits on the article talk page, but it would be a conflict of interest for you to directly edit the page.

Please understand- I'm not trying to conceal anything, I don't want to sweep this issue under the rug. I'd be happy to change the article.... if WP:RS supported such a change. I would love to provide the most accurate information available. But right now- there are no reputable sources to support the changes you are wanting. Your choice then is to either go start a webpage of your own dedicated to telling your version of the story, find WP:RS that support your story and request changes on the article talk page, or find other articles to work on. Whatever you choose- I wish you the best. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand that and I guess its crazy to me that repeatable sources to you all are only the media. There are actually a couple articles that have just been released about this topic in the media though and the UN has made an effort to work on this. I can link both of those things. I had made an effort to talk about this to the editors but they were not willing to listen at all. Maybe because of their pride attached to their work, idk. I dont know why anyone wouldnt at least want to change it if they found out something contrary to what was believed, especially when it means you would be saving lives.

The issue with this page's current "definition" of electronic harassment is that its not a report or fact based definition at all. Its extremely bias and it talks about it related to only the government and that's not conclusive. Many of these attacks are carried out by everyday people with access to black market technology, just like some of the conversations of how people are getting military grade guns.

On top of that it directly makes a claim that these victims are criminals and mentally ill people when its quite the opposite. The abusers are mentally ill and criminals. I hope you see why there is such a large issue in the way this page has been documented and it would almost be better if the page didn't exist at all. This is the first thing that pops on google and this definition is even quoted in an online encyclopedia. I hope you understand why this page is not an afterthought but you are influencing opinions which makes it almost impossible for people to get any support on this. Mariecyber (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC) MarieCyber


 * You are casting aspirations on the other editors by saying they have personal reasons why they arn't changing. One of the requirements of Wikipedia is to ASsume Good Faith. 99% of the editors here are working towards the same goal- to make this the best encyclopedia it can be. We all want to include the best possible information- Very few have any personal connection to the topic or any reason not to include all well sourced information. We are happy to change the article as new information comes out- as long as it is being supported by either academic or news sources- IE it has been researched and verified. Now- you make a lot of claims- where are these sources you say you have? It doesn't have to be the news media, newspapers- it can be academic research, in fact that's even better. Please- show me the UN article- because that would definitely be something that can be used to change the article. But unless an academic or media source backs up every one of your claims- they are unsubstantiated and cannot be included in an encyclopedia. So we can't use personal experiences or individual blogs or websites- that doesn't mean they are fake and that doesn't mean they don't have merit- it just means we wouldn't be the right place for them yet, we need more confimration first. But by all means- please share these UN articles here and if they are what you say- I'll happily add the information to the article for you! Nightenbelle (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

- I genuinely want to assume that and have good faith but the treatment on that talk page was so extreme. Many of the conversations I read are now deleted but if you saw some of the responses, it was very much a complete (sometimes even mean) denial. At one point they just closed the conversation without any response. There were so many people advocating for the same thing I was, and the fact that not one of their edits were made and the only edits they were even interested in talking about were so bias and again really mean. That is why I cannot assume good faith. I do not think that about the editing community on wikipedia in general. I'm sure there are many great people on this platform, and wikipedia is a great organization.

Many articles include BOTH sides. They may start by saying they are skeptical but they also make references to real testimonies, arguments, court cases (some of which people have won), patents etc, non of which have been included on this page. The only part they choose to include are snippets that support the viewpoint that electronic harassment is not true, and then they cite the article. Then they conveniently have a section just about people who have committed crimes who have claimed they were harassed. I specifically asked them what information do you need to take off the word "conspiracy" and they didn't answer me at all. You can even use the word claim if you want to be neutral but conspiracy implies that it isn't true. Its not a "theory", there are governments and states that have laws against electronic harassment. People claim that it happened to them, not that it can happen.

Okay, thank you for listening. I will add the articles and you can tell me if its enough to include. If not, feedback about what you are looking for will help me research better information. Mariecyber (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the past 2.5 years of talk page conversations on this article. Not once has any WP:RS been supplied to support any change that anyone has wanted to make. Yes, at times the denials got mean, but only after those requesting change had been politely told why their changes were not acceptable and they continued to WP:BLUDGEON. To be clear- academic sources are preferable- but they must be sources that have received significant attention- which can be checked by how many times they have been cited by other papers/journals (See Jstore). Or news coverage in a significant reputable paper. Reports by agencies like the UN will also work- but they may be primary sources which become tricky and may or may not be useable- its something of a case by case basis and not my expertise- but I do know people I can ask if I'm unsure. Individual experiences, Articles by TI's or True Believers, news older than 10 years, or articles that talk about future possibilities will not work. PLease post requested changes here or on the article talk page before adding them to the article itself. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)