User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2022/December

Avoid intimidatory misuse of ivmbox

@Tgeorgescu: Your edit was highlighted to the wikipedia community who recognized it as misuse of sanctionary notices with possible malicious intent to intimidate from contribution.
You are therefor informed about WP:Assume_good_faith and advised to avoid further misuse of mentioned template and misplaced allegation of advocacy for an 'alternative medicine' otherwise it will be reported to ANI. Kreyren (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kreyren: Who highlighted it and where? When did the Wikipedia Community passed judgment about it? Please provide diffs for your claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: The issue has been highlighted on Wikipedia's IRC channel #wikipedia:libera.chat and this topic has been submitted on recommendation from the moderator. It should be viewable from https://web.libera.chat/ or https://matrix.to/#/!mQMIFYpMnYFXmdyXfC:libera.chat/$_iJsbc1B7MboXidzz4leibYlf5xHKvHabYZdmPrS2dM?via=libera.chat&via=matrix.org&via=tchncs.de --Kreyren (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: In good faith to address this issue the conflict from my point of view went as: I submitted a cite_check on veganism that you wrongly understood to be motivated by denialism to the consumption of vitamins as evident by the talk page that you've created on Talk:Veganism#Selling vitamins and thus were condemned for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kreyren&diff=1125668587&oldid=1125667302 including the comment ' WP:AE is just around the corner' and threats towards me to be topic banned, thus you were given WP:Assume good faith and told to avoid misuse of the template as this behavior is abusive and inappropriate. Next time consider first discussing this in the relevant talk page or read the highlighted issue better prior to filing 'Discretionary sanctions'. ANI was recommended quote "user tgeorgescu was laying it on a bit thick. My advice on these things is that - usually - it's best to let it go. But if you think they're harassing you, you could try ANI", because your behavior made me feel very uncomfortable.<br>

Now the recommended course of action now is to take the cite_check in the talk page of veganism article to reach consensus among editors and decide whether it should be addressed and if so how which i will submit in the near future and i recognize that the cite_check should have been more descriptive to avoid such misunderstandings. --Kreyren (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kreyren: user tgeorgescu was laying it on a bit thick—the only place at en.wiki wherein I can find this is at this talk page, nowhere else. Please provide evidence for your claims. As stated, I don't do IRC. Nor I plan to do.

As for the notifications, en.wiki does not acknowledge any authority which can undo notifications of discretionary sanctions.

And, to answer your charge: I will offer discretionary sanctions notifications to anyone who seems to be promoting alternative medicine and/or pseudoscience. I mean: just the appearance of doing it is enough. If they can explain that they did not mean it, they can explain that after receiving the notifications. As I said, I am not admin, so I don't sanction anyone.

To tell you the truth, I still find that your puzzling hatnote is founded upon very shaky grounds. Very weak reasoning for even claiming WP:SOAPBOXING.

Just because you'd be first to start an WP:ANI thread (first to complain), it does not mean you'd be automatically the winner. Each complaint is judged on its merits and WP:BOOMERANG still applies. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

Hi Tgeorgescu, I’m new here. I hope this is the right way to talk to you.

Would you mind clarifying about discretionary standards in Complementary and Alternative Medicine?

Does the message mean that there can de no further conversation around removing the label of pseudoscience from the Ayurveda page?

Thanks, sorry I’m a little slow. GraceAnneLove44 (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@GraceAnneLove44: Yup, trying to remove "pseudoscience" from Ayurveda is a waste of time. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu, thanks for elaborating more on my talk page, I’ve responded over there. GraceAnneLove44 (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)