User talk:Ezshack

January 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Centella asiatica. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Make your case for why my edit was inaccurate? Is the consensusAlways correct? Show me where what I edited was less accurate than what was there before. It seems Wikipedia has lost it's reputation for being a free information platform. Ezshack (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Each of the statements under Traditional medicine here is supported by a source. It is unconstructive to state that a medical condition has not been investigated (you said, however, medical trials have not been initiated.) It is more accurate to say that clinical efficacy and safety have not been scientifically confirmed, which is the usual case for studies of traditional medicine practices. There was no good reason to change the section, and there are no reliable WP:MEDRS sources to justify a change. Zefr (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)