|
2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Hello there fellow editor! I saw that you marked my reference for the health risks part in the page Cherry as I provided no link for the Youtube video I referred to. Instead I mentioned the title of the video as I was unable to post the link directly. If you wouldn't mind, you could type the said title on Youtube, and get the video I sourced to know about the information given. However, I shall state that the given video is from a verified scientist, who has accurately calculated the amount of cyanide found in a sampled cherry pit. I hope my message provides clarity about the same. Thank you! E3C4B1 ( talk) 14:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @ E3C4B1:,
- While I do appreciate your dedication to document things like this. Youtube is generally not accepted as a primary source of information. Please check WP:NOYT for the reason why. The main reason why I think it is an issue in this case is the self-published nature of youtube and its inherent lack of peer review. Findings such as these should be either published and scrutinised in a paper or be part of an overview paper. On itself it does not stand as a good source of information, especially not as the primary source of a whole new section.
- I have looked at your bio and it seems that it is your mission to transfer knowledge from Youtube to wikipedia. While I do apreciate the effort, do expect that there to be quite a bit of pushback on that. You might need to push for some policy changes for comments like these not to happen.
- Hope this doesn't disharten you from writing for Wikipedia. Dondville ( talk) 15:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I do know that Youtube links are not accepted as reference, probably also as they may provide a loophole for malicious links to be presented as evidence. I however just want the evidence to not be erased or wiped out, and I believe it is a crucial evidence that states the relative safety of limiting accidental cherry pit ingestions to a pit or two to curb poisonings. I am not disheartened by any criticism or feedback, and I do appreciate that you brought this to my attention. Thank you! E3C4B1 ( talk) 16:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
|
2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Hello there fellow editor! I saw that you marked my reference for the health risks part in the page Cherry as I provided no link for the Youtube video I referred to. Instead I mentioned the title of the video as I was unable to post the link directly. If you wouldn't mind, you could type the said title on Youtube, and get the video I sourced to know about the information given. However, I shall state that the given video is from a verified scientist, who has accurately calculated the amount of cyanide found in a sampled cherry pit. I hope my message provides clarity about the same. Thank you! E3C4B1 ( talk) 14:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @ E3C4B1:,
- While I do appreciate your dedication to document things like this. Youtube is generally not accepted as a primary source of information. Please check WP:NOYT for the reason why. The main reason why I think it is an issue in this case is the self-published nature of youtube and its inherent lack of peer review. Findings such as these should be either published and scrutinised in a paper or be part of an overview paper. On itself it does not stand as a good source of information, especially not as the primary source of a whole new section.
- I have looked at your bio and it seems that it is your mission to transfer knowledge from Youtube to wikipedia. While I do apreciate the effort, do expect that there to be quite a bit of pushback on that. You might need to push for some policy changes for comments like these not to happen.
- Hope this doesn't disharten you from writing for Wikipedia. Dondville ( talk) 15:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I do know that Youtube links are not accepted as reference, probably also as they may provide a loophole for malicious links to be presented as evidence. I however just want the evidence to not be erased or wiped out, and I believe it is a crucial evidence that states the relative safety of limiting accidental cherry pit ingestions to a pit or two to curb poisonings. I am not disheartened by any criticism or feedback, and I do appreciate that you brought this to my attention. Thank you! E3C4B1 ( talk) 16:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)