User talk:50.45.170.185

This page contains material that is kept because Zefr's messages are considered humorous by me. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

An SPI has been opened about you here. I think you should also declare that you have no

I have no COI with the "kasper research group", I'm a software developer in America working on cloud technologies. Nor do I have any COI with anyone that produces lavender oil. I just recently bought some on amazon that claimed it was "clinically studied" or some such for help with sleeping and anxiety, two things I struggle with. Being a skeptic of alternative medicine, and knowing that essential oils are often used as such, I started researching online to see what weight the claims had. From what I found on peer-reviewed journals: lots of evidence. From what I found on wikipedia: no evidence (source drugs.com).

This is the only simple change I wanted to make to Wikipedia. Apologies if you see this as "relentless". I have pretty much never edited wikipedia before so I understand your suspicion.

I'm not sure how to defend against the sock-puppet claims. I used to have a Wikipedia account years ago that was very old but I had it deleted because it had a username I used across many other sites and that username had eventually become linked to my real world identity which was a breach of privacy for me. If an admin needs me to reveal that username privately I can do so. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that usernames can't be deleted on Wikipedia. Could you, perhaps, remember the username in question? --ARoseWolf 20:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's been so long I had to look it up, you're right it probably wasn't deleted. I believe this is what happened to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Courtesy_vanishing 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well then one issue might be that you came back and edited though I'm not sure how courtesy vanishing applies to IP editing. Either way, it just suggests something nefarious. Can you at least admit it doesn't look good? I'm not really interested in getting involved in the credibility of the sources of the medicinal purposes of lavender oil nor any SPI case. Even if I did utilize traditional medicines from plants I can understandably see the need for MEDRS and the value of the editors here that watch for such things and protect the articles under the umbrella of that policy/guideline. Personally, I would caution you to gain a better understanding of the policy and also read

WP:BRD tries to explain. It might give you a better understanding of why even one revert could be seen as edit warring. --ARoseWolf 20:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I requested the vanishing for privacy reasons. I wasn't aware that I could never come back and edit again. If that's the case then しょうがねぇ...

As for MEDRS, actually I think it is really cool. [1]

If you're not aware already, quite a lot of the discussion so far has been about it. My position is basically that the previous sources that were being used are in fact not MEDRS-compliant, which is why I opened this on the RSN [2] and made this RfC [3]

My hope is that Wikipedia becomes even better for readers because of all of this (selfishly of course, as I am primarily a reader). 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your history of edits suggests you are on Wikipedia to showcase or promote

Meanwhile, why have you not created an account? See

Zefr, editors do not have to create an account. We have many IP editors that make amazing contributions every day. --ARoseWolf 20:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been editing here for 3 days, shouldn't someone with a PhD know how sample sizes work? Also, I have made edits to pages not related to lavender oil, and have participated in discussions not related to pharmacology at all.

I appreciate your constant harassment but please see

WP:HUMAN 50.45.170.185 (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:50.45.170.185 reported by User:Zefr (Result: ). Thank you. Zefr (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:50.45.170.185 reported by User:Zefr (Result: ). Thank you. Zefr (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lavandula 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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