Talk:Mozambique spitting cobra

	Mozambique spitting cobra is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

article

this article is really terrible. 67.172.61.222 03:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length of snake

http://scientistatwork.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/return-to-the-elephant-club/ Discusses a sighting of a two meter long snake in Namibia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.204.129 (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mozambique Spitting Cobra → Mozambique spitting cobra – Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 23:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Longest specimen

User:Wolfeyes is, I see you have been trying to add a new record length into the article. Please supply a reliable source for your claim, so that we can help you to get it into the article. --Slashme (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wolfeyes_is, Hi User:Slashme "/me", I see your reliable sources in the wiki pages rely on information from universities or from documentary books. But my question is where did this information originally come from? It came from people out in the field documenting anything and everything they found. This information was then placed in these same books which we should now refer to. If for example someone like myself comes with new information updating the old, this old information from these books can't be used as a reliable source. In which case I would then be a Author or creator of this new information. If it is just information what is stopping anyone and everyone from just adding anything in these pages, only facts to verify this information! Due to there being no sources in books then my information can only prove originality if I can prove it and I can! I had the specimen in my hands, I have taken pictures of it and pictures of measurements of it. I have witnesses to this as well. I also have the skin which I am busy preserving, which in fact measures way over 190cm. So I have all the evidence to prove my claims are not just speculation or hearsay! I do not know where to post the pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.146.50.41 (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wolfeyes_is, it's a firm policy that we don't publish original research on Wikipedia. We publish material that can be sourced to reliable secondary sources that have editorial oversight. This is because Wikipedia's information doesn't rely on the authority of its authors, but rather on the verifiability of the sources of the information. Can a reader verify that a particular source confirms what is being said, and can the reader trust that the source is solid? In your case, I'd recommend submitting the record-breaking specimen to a local museum or university, and contact a newspaper. If it's really a record, they're sure to be keen to write an article about it. Then we can use that as a source. --Slashme (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]