User talk:Databoose43

Edit Summaries

Hi there! I just wanted to tell you that edit summaries should be brief and concise, while still comprehensive of your edit. In this diff, I noticed your summary was too long for conventional purposes. If you need to explain an edit, then use the article's talk page for that. Remember, be bold when editing! Thanks, The Troutinator 🐟 - Slap me | What I've slapped 03:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my apologies, this was my second wiki edit i've made (previous one was without an account but figured i'd make an account since i use wikipedia a lot).

Thanks for the help, i appreciate it. Databoose43 (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks for the heads up. I had tried to resolve the issue within the talk page however the user was intent on keeping the content exclusive to epidiolex, which is only stated for forms of epilepsy, the exact mechanism of which CBD being known for mitigating these forms of epilepsy, currently unknown.

However, the pharmacology page is in regards to what receptors the drug may interact with and how, not what aliments it may treat or how, no matter how clinicially insignificant it may be for example that CBD has extremely mild activity with the u-opioid receptor (which may turn out to be actually clinicially significant, our understanding on this currently is pretty new), it is still information about the drug and what it does to the body/brain. Databoose43 (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No such "attacks" had occured, you legitimately participated in page griefing, but thank you for this information i guess. Databoose43 (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR..... Don't get blocked before you can make your point on the talk page. Final warning. Moxy-

04:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point had already been made in talk page regardless, everything that had needed to be discussed had been discussed, simply a matter of users participating in edit griefing at this stage. Databoose43 (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RE: your latest edits - edit warring and empty threats about moderators are not going to help you get your way. All of the venues for making such reports are on the wiki, and it is obvious that you have made no such report. There really is no substitute for discussing with other editors and forming a consensus. MrOllie (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me to file it, i had almost forgot and let you loose there. Databoose43 (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

I see you have been working on some health-related subjects, and I want to invite you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. You're welcome to join us if it's a subject area that interests you. It's a good place to ask questions about finding good sources for medical content or writing style. Feel free to put the group's page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Theanine. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You have a real attitude against editors who disagree with you. Reporting you to admin for review of WP:RPA. Zefr (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making threats isn't going to do anything, other users have agreed at this point that you are effectively griefing pages, this is not an attack, you are vandalizing pages.

The only editor who had disagreed with me was one of your moderators who tried, and failed to threaten me into submission and yourself, other users agree that not only do you have no idea what you are talking about in regards to pharmacology and shouldn't be making edits in regards to pharma sections, but that you are actively intending on sabatoging pages.

All of your griefs will be reverted,again and again,nothing will change that, kick rocks and cry about it. Databoose43 (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, i will be making sure to not only keep a watch out for the almost definite griefs you will be conducting but i will be giving other users a heads up to stay on lookout, i'll be making a constant effort to revert your unsubstiantiated nukes.

You're responsible for damaging a lot of people's hard work and it's unfortunate that you're not banned off of the platform entirely, but at least i have the ability to look into your edits across wiki pages and deal with your nonsense myself. Databoose43 (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your incivility is hard to understand, as you are a new user on Wikipedia attacking other editors as incompetent or as vandals because they edit your entries or disagree with you. This behavior is disruptive and may land you under admin review and possible loss of editing privileges.

This is a guide for dealing with incivil editors. Review these points for yourself and see #5 - you should remove or strike through the 2nd paragraph of your remark, this unnecessary comment, and the 2nd paragraph of this comment, all three of which are personal attacks against an editor who disagreed with you and did not engage in a personal attack on you.

Your talk page comment here was an example of how you can be collaborative, then you followed it up with another personal attack - please strike that out, as it violates talk page guidelines intended to focus on improving the article, not to disparage other editors; WP:TALKNO.

Other attacks by you are evident in the above talk page discussions and in many of your edit summaries, such as this one.

This attack is really offensive and something I have not witnessed before in 19 years of editing Wikipedia.

These examples are WP:RPA behavior which, for you as a novice editor, is odd, as you are not following the collaborative nature of volunteers who are editing to make pharmacological content easy to understand for the common, non-science user of the encyclopedia - see WP:MEDMOS, Writing for the wrong audience and WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-7. Zefr (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok first off, stop feigning civilty, you did this with both talks on the cannabidiol and the theanine one, in the discussions among users you were blatantly devoid of even the most basic of reasoning or cooperation, so please, just stop doing that, this is perhaps maybe the most annoying thing about you. You are not being civil and neither am i (difference is, i am honest about it), you're not attempting to lend a hand, you are trying to appear as the voice of reason and it is insanely obnoxious.

You actually had one good wiki edit for once if you checked to see that i legitimately look at your edits and leave them there if they are a positive impact on the page, and i appreciate your recent edit made in regards to the theanine one, however when i say "i will be making sure to not only keep a watch out for the almost definite griefs you will be conducting", i say this because you are a chronic offender in this regard and are a user who others should be on alert to look out for.

Better yourself in regards to how you conduct with other users and better your information in regards to the context of the topic at hand, saying things like we don't know the mechanism of action of CBD because epidiolex, a brand name of CBD doesn't how how it works specifically for seizures is so beyond an uneducated and outragoes statement that it is not even funny.

For me, as a pharmacologist, the average person reads these wiki pages for information regarding these drugs, (or compounds if you want to split hairs), and it frustrates me that you are deliberately choosing to destroy extremely important and pertenent information in regards to these compounds.

You don't need a PHD in pharmacology, hell, i don't even expect you to go to college for it, but i expect you to do your due dilligance when you are editing pages, there is a plethora of free avaliable pharmacology literature that you can utilize to learn about the subject better, pubmed being a great starter.

My job is not to make you feel good, it is to provide the most accurate possible information that is avaliable at the time within a digestable readable format, this is what wikipedia as a website is for, if some findings are new, expiremental and upcoming but we aren't certain yet, then it's absolutely reasonable to refrain from putting it in, but when there has been extenstive studies on a claim (take for example, THC being a CB1 agonist), and is actually significantly substantiated, that is critically important information that ought to be put in. Databoose43 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not every edit disagreement needs to be a fist fight, as you seem to think of it. Cool it and try being collegial. I have asked for you to delete offensive attack comments on talk pages - will you be making these changes? Zefr (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly i want to say i think i remember calling you a chronic griefer, or that you are one, but i cannot find the particular instance, however for that sake if i can find it (i'm not feigning here, i swore i said this but i can't find it) i will be happy to remove that because i don't believe if an individual does something in a period of time that they are that for life.

However, I've reviewed these references you've linked and i don't believe any of them to be personal attacks but rather critisms of your behavior and actions within that current time of writing, however, conversely, if you do something that is admirable i will also make it my mission to point out if you have done something (at least i percieve) as beneficial, i've done this with other users and while we have heavily edit warred, you are still no different whatsoever in this instance.

One important thing to note, and please read this, reputation is not something that is set and never changes, reputation is fluid and can be changed entirely based on behavior and action, i do not believe you are a bad person, it is simply the conduct i take issue with, because as a pharmacologist i want people to look at a wikipedia page and say "wow, that's useful to know, my day has improved", not "well, there's not really any information here, i haven't really improved my understanding of x topic". Databoose43 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue is your violation of a Wikipedia policy, WP:NPA, which states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia."

You have personally attacked me and other editors who disagreed with you either in article editing or in discussion on talk pages. You have the opportunity to right a mistake by removing personal attacks on any talk pages, including your own, but especially on the talk page for theanine (today). Zefr (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated, they are not personal attacks, i am done speaking with you, please stop messaging me, thank you. Databoose43 (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]