User talk:Argenteus.CG

Welcome!

Hello, Argenteus.CG, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hallucinogenic fish

I have removed the amended addition you made to Hallucinogenic fish. Even though this is now sourced, this is still original research on your part. This is because the source you provided does not explicitly mention fish. Your speculation about what is likely or unlikely is a form of synthesis. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

So, I don't know if you'll see this, I'm new to having conversations on wikipedia. But would this really be synthesis. It is a fact that DMT is not orally active without a MAOI. Surely we're allowed to make such incredibly basic logical conclusions as "this orally inactive compound wouldn't be likely to produce effects when consumed orally"? I won't add it back if you're sure, but that seems unnecessarily restrictive; I can see the point of the rule in certain cases, but not being able to make even the simplest of conclusions unless some source specifically states it seems counterproductive. Making broad conclusions from limited data is one thing, but "this relies on something impossible being true, thus this likely isn't true" is another. Still, I suppose the rules of wikipedia are the rules, even if they are counterproductive in this case. Argenteus.CG (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)