User talk:Kreyren

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:^[1][2][3][4]

Wikipedia's policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.

So yes, we are biased.

• We are biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience.
• We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.^[5]
• We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.^[6]
• We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.^[7]
• We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.^[8]
• We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.^[9]
• We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.^[10]
• We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.^[11]
• We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
• We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.^[12]
• We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.^[13]
• We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.^[14]
• We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.^[15]
• We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
• We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
• We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.^[16]
• We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
• We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.^[17]
• We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.^[18]
• We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.^[19]
• We are biased towards an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.^[20]
• We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.^[21]
• We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.^[22]
• We are biased towards the existence of Jesus and biased against the existence of Santa Claus.^[23]
• We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.^[24]
• We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.^[25]
• We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.^[26]
• We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
• We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

How the fuck is this relevant to anything Kreyren (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 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. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC) }}

I study medicine in which i will major in.. My interest is only in real and objective science that can be verified and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sanctioning me for interest in "Complementary and alternative medicine" is offensive to me and I appeal this sanction. Kreyren (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Special page on my contributions to the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Kreyren&target=Kreyren&offset=&limit=500

Where exactly do you think that I've shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine to justify sanctioning? Kreyren (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

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. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I study medicine in which i will major in.. My interest is only in real and objective science that can be verified and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Sanctioning me for interest in "Complementary and alternative medicine" is offensive to me and I appeal this sanction. Kreyren (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a notification, not a sanction. I'm not an admin, so I cannot sanction any Wikipedian. But if you persist in advocating that vitamins for vegans are WP:COI, learn that WP:AE is just around the corner.

You are free to address veganism and animal cruelty articles, but needlessly crying COI will get you topic banned, and it is extremely hard to appeal such topic bans. The choice is yours. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The edits in question were a week ago. This is quite overkill, @Tgeorgescu. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Yup, but their edits remained unnoticed until very recently. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I am not saying that vitamins for vegans are WP:COI personally i recognize that vitamins especially B12 and cholecalciferol are critical in the vegan diet. What I am highlighting is the evident bias by the mentioned sources that influences the wording in the article that from my Point Of View seems more like a marketing stunt to prompt the readers to buy vitamins from these companies than an objective and science-driven article on veganism as it should be on wikipedia. Kreyren (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia renders mainstream science for what it is, but does not engage in WP:SOAPBOXING for buying vitamins from this company, but not other companies. If you can show that the article uses language which promotes only one company, please say so at the talk page. But to merely WP:CITE consensus statements of vegan societies and dieticians guilds is not commercial advertising. We do not promote this or that company, but we do have respect for science and for the consensus statements from respectable scientific organizations. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleting stuff from your talk page is considered evidence that you have read and understood it. You are still notified of discretionary sanctions, you cannot remove yourself from such notifications. And to tell you the truth, not even Jimmy Wales can undo the fact that you have been notified of discretionary sanctions. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)