Cysus
Welcome!
|
OMDL, you're just interested in your version of the article being the right one. Please contact the authorities! That's not a proper discussion at all. You "know" your version is the right one and everyone else is wrong - but you got NO PROOF AT ALL that it doesn't have any venom in its saliva and this doesn't matter at all, for it is irresponsible to not mention it could have effects on humans! So I will proceed to change the article! But not without giving you the chance to do it yourself! And don't let me guess how old you are. Change the article yourself or I will proceed as I did!
PS: To confirm your state of view, get bitten yourself! (This will work if you rub your fingers on a toad and present it to the snake.)
- The next steps will be: you make another unsourced edit, you get a final warning. The next edit, you get reported to an administrator, which will probably result in a short block. The next one after that, a longer block. The next one after that, a permanent block. To avoid that: don't make edits that are not referenced to reliable, published sources. Your choice. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Please report me now! The sooner the better for everyone! (And you didn't comment on your age! (No offence, dude... but strange)) I want to talk to someone really having a plan of what's going on! So if you wish, please report me NOW!!! I can't let it happen that someone's got an allergic reaction to an h.n. bite and I didn't mention it! DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO!
And as mentioned: in two days i will edit the page again. and i'd be happy to talk to someone really in charge!
- Everyone here is in charge; but to participate, you have to follow a set of constant policies (which administrators are equipped to enforce). The one in question here is Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you don't want to follow the rules, you will be prevented from editing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
So just tell me what I've to do to! Does a website containing the information already mentioned do the job? There'll be no difference, but then there'd be a source! If so I'll upload information about my ex and me being bitten (for different reasons by two different bluffers) to a website and link it... it does not make any sense to me, but i'll do as you command, my king!
PS: sorry, i didn't mean to offend you. but as a german whos grandparents stood their ground against the nazi ideology I'm easily pushed by someone talking 'bout rules. Sorry. I accept and I'll create a page featuring pictures of our fingers, eventually adding the information (with a source URL) to the article.
PPS: i'm new to this talk pages, so i don't know if it's just you reading me or everyone in the world interested in this discussion! If it was just you i'd give you my phone number and we could settle this thing faster (if my plan - see above - won't work!)
- Sorry, just "putting your information online" won't do it. What we are talking here is reliable mainstream sources: material that has been professionally published, with editorial oversight. If you have a look at that link, you will find that a) we can't use personal opinion or original research at all (we've already established that); and b) blogs, personal websites etc. only in very rare circumstances, such as when they have an established reputation for veracity and quality. The mainstay for sourcing material on Wikipedia is books, magazine and newspaper articles (print or online), curated databases, and scientific journals - this is particularly true when it comes to medical information. Peer-reviewed scientific articles are the gold standard, and that is what Western hognose snake currently uses to reference the statement that the species is considered nonvenomous. I already had a good look around the toxicology literature: that article (here) appears to be the most authoritative assessment available. If you wish to challenge that, you will need to find high-quality published sources that make your point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay. So I will have my observations published in a scientific magazine. Will take some time but I'll do it. But IF meanwhile any person got an anaphylactic shock 'cause she read this article and didn't know about the risk, you are the one to blame and I'll stand up to it. Remember this.
(PS: Gonna check your articles soon for non-reliable sources... guess there are many; as most information on the internet is controversial. News pages are not reliable, personal websites are not reliable, AND wikipedia is not reliable (as I now encountered). So I hope any information you added to Wiki was from university profs written pages!)
Good luck!
PS: You didn't answer to my question about this being public or not. Even if you don't want to talk to me personally (for whatever reason it is - you still could hang up the phone at any time you liked), I'd be glad to know!
- - If you happen to get your experiences published in a peer-reviewed journal, it's all good... our concerns here are verifiability (can it be looked up by the reader) and reliability (has it been checked over by someone who knows the topic and is accountable for the content).
- - News pages are generally considered reliable, if by that you mean the online presence of newspapers - due to editorial oversight and accountability. Exceptions exist (WP recently deprecated the Daily Mail as a reliable source, for unsurprising reasons) but they are exceptions. However, if different sources state contradictory things, a scientific paper trumps most everything else, at least in STEM sciences.
- - This conversation is public to the extent that any user can see this page and contribute. But first they need to be aware that there's something worth reading here. With millions of user talk pages, the chance of someone stumbling on this by accident is slim unless they are specifically being linked here from a more trafficked/visible place (e.g., an article's talk page). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
June 2021 edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Meister Eder und sein Pumuckl (TV series) have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Meister Eder und sein Pumuckl (TV series) was changed by Cysus (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.850581 on 2021-06-25T22:11:07+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)