User talk:Olly7

February 2020
This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Praxidicae (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

My changes of adding [[cannabidiol] to Clonazepam, Alprazolam and Diazepam are legitimate.

''• There are additional sources that can back up this claim. Also this is formatted correctly in line with everything else on the article.''

"• CBD" cannabidiol is an inhibitor of the CYP3A (4 + 5) Enzymes and more. It is sold as a supplement on the high streets of a large majority of countries. Like Grapefruit juice is. It does not require pharmacists to dispense it. No different to multivitamins.

'''• THEREFORE it's is vitally important that people know it can interact with these medicines and more.

• If you intend to remove my changes again, please can you explain why? '''
 * I already did. It's spam. The website you're repeatedly spamming is not WP:MEDRS and is just a seller of CBD items. Keep it up and you'll be blocked and the site will be blacklisted. Praxidicae (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

'''• I'll add a source that Praxidicae believes is appropriate - as there are many to back up this claim. Then there will be no problem will there? :) [1627 GMT]'''

• NEW "Non Spam" SOURCE ADDED to clonazepam and alprazolam and diazepam letting people know that cannabidiol is a potent CYP3A inhibitor, similar to that of grapefruit - something that millions of people use with these medications each day - and therefore should be aware of a possible interaction'''. This can be verified on https://www.drugs.com/interaction/list/ if you add any of the above medications with cannabidiol it notes a moderate interaction. This is relevant and important - I have formatted everything correctly, and the source PubMed is legitimate and used elsewhere! Hope the is ok for you Praxidicae ? [1801pm February 2020 GMT]'''

Bentham
Is probably predatory and thus not suitable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you on about  Doc James' (talk)  ''about me being "predatory". You are removing medical FACTS from Wiki pages about possible drug interactions between common supplments - and you claim it predatory, citing a PubMed source.''' You must be mad if you think that. I'm updating old pages with the latest information that people should be able to see for their own safety and you Block it, huh? -- Just shows the toxic atmosphere here. (Yes that latter half was passively '""predator"" but honestly its deserved after your comment!)

February 2020
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. 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 blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Praxidicae (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Praxidicae (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring block
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Normally I would only block for 48 - 72 hours for a first time offense, however your short editing history demonstrates a specific WP:POV push and inability to collaborate as is required to edit here. I don't have any confidence that a timed block will make any difference; you can be unblocked when you commit to using the relevant article talk pages to calmly discuss the changes you wish to make and wait for consensus to form prior to making such changes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)