User talk:Sciencearousal

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)
 * 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)

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

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)