User talk:67.33.99.218

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Handgun effectiveness, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. --Jauerback 02:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you do. It's called WP:OR which Wikipedia does not allow. Jauerback 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i simply can't imagine why some people would consider your site to be inaccurate on some subjects. especially when you allow nonsense like the handgun article to be considered factual based on a hokey, probably imaginary, study from the 18th century, but the observations of a certified emergency room rn whose testimony in court was admissible on more than one occasion is unsubstantiated according the anatomy and physiology expert that you obviously are.

p.s. page 137 of The Nurse's Handbook To Critical Care 6th edition by Cathy White MSN states that a mean arterial pressure below 65mmhg is "not compatible to human life" and that below 65mmhg "systemic disruption of the Central Nervous System is inevitable and the effects are immediately evident."

Look, you just found a source - use it. It's not "my site". I'm a contributer, just like you. If you think the handgun article needs updating, then feel free to add/change it -- just cite your sources. It's only going to be as accurate as contributers make it, however if you can't see why "...this is true, because I've seen it..." is not acceptable on Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia article), then I can't really be much more of help to you. Jauerback 11:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
In addition, your entry to the article, although may be accurate, is rift with POV and commentary. See WP:NPOV for further info. Also, lose the attitude with people giving you constructive criticism about a site which you are obviously new to. I never claimed to be a "anatomy and physiology expert", you came to that conclusion all on your own. Jauerback 13:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

i really don't concern myself with what your position is or is not with this site, i am concerned with your insistence on defending an obviously ignorant position on how the human body works. you appear to know very little on the subject and yet you seem determined to preserve this flawed position with the vigor of a self-righteous fool. you e-mailed me to tell me that i needed to cite a reference, which i did, and now i need to cite a second reference as per you. well why don't you cite a study that was conducted in the last say, 150 years.

p.s. if you don't like my attitude quit contacting me

I'm not defending any position about the article, because I know nothing about this topic nor have I never claimed to. I also never emailed you nor have I ever said that you had to cite a second source. I just told you that you have to cite sources for anything that you put into an article. Telling me on your user page does not count as citing a source. You need to do it in article, itself. See WP:CITE for more information. I'm just trying to give you some insight on how Wikipedia works and I'm glad to see you're being very receptive to learning something new.Jauerback 00:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)