User talk:Achilles11719

Welcome!

Hello, Achilles11719, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Jwinius (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Python reticulatus

Hi Achilles11719, Although I have no doubt that your recent edits to the Python reticulatus article have been in good faith, this is not the place to put information regarding individual specimens with cute names of which it is claimed by the zoo or the media that it is the longest/largest in captivity.

You have to start by asking yourself seriously whether Fox News or the Columbus Zoo are reliable and objective sources for this information. I would argue that neither of them are. The zoo has an interest in maintaining the impression that they are indeed in possession of the largest specimen of P. reticulatus in captivity, because they hope to use this to attract more visitors to their zoo. Fox News, on the other hand, is in the business of selling stories and, like many news outlets, has a history of exaggerating the facts, or at least not checking up on them. In this case, the zoo is willing to make the claim, so they're more than happy to pass this on the the public as fact -- it makes the story sound more interesting, so they're not going to ask any questions about it.

On the other hand, if you can find a publication written by an outside authority, on the subject of this species, or even on large boas/pythons in general, that backs up this claim by the Columbus Zoo, then we will be able to use that source as a reference to properly back it up. However, you have to realize how unlikely this is: such records are claimed quite frequently and take time and effort to verify. Therefore, I will continue to object to your adding of this information to the article until you can produce a reliable reference. --Jwinius (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]