User talk:Stewart Cowan

December 2015

Hello, I'm Tony Abigail. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Oil of clove seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tony Abigail (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Stewart Cowan. You have new messages at Samtar's talk page.
Message added 19:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- samtar ^whisper 19:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Oil of clove, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 05:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oil of clove. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent behaviour is unacceptable to me. I will remove the lies from the page as I see fit and back up the truth with citations. If you continue to suppress the truth in a similar manner, I will report you as being a potential danger to the integrity of Wikipedia. Stewart Cowan (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Oil of clove#Dispute

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Oil of clove#Dispute. Relating to the Oil of clove dispute you are involved in Thanks. -- samtar ^whisper 16:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

references

Hi, its important in medical content to always follow Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Your recent editing history at Oil of clove shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. clpo13_(talk) 04:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that being on Wikipedia to right great wrongs, especially when combined with edit warring, will get you blocked. I'd advise you to participate civilly in the talk page discussion instead of casting aspersions about the motivations of Wikipedia or its volunteers. clpo13_(talk) 05:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern, but others are changing my edits, so it is those people who risk sanctions. One alleged FDA announcement, which nobody seems to have accessed, is hardly unbiased and neutral, especially when there is so much evidence that clove oil is effective in reducing toothache and has been an accepted remedy for a long time. I think my current edit gives a balanced view of both the documented advantages and the FDA position (even though nobody around here seems to know what it is).

The Encyclopædia Britannica states, "This oil [i.e. clove] is used to prepare microscopic slides for viewing and is also a local anesthetic for toothaches."

I wonder what makes the army of clove oil 'experts' here believe that they know better! Stewart Cowan (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]