User talk:Snakefan55

Welcome!

Hello, Snakefan55, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snake toxicity

It does not matter who you are, it does matter what you can write. Your idea is valid, but is very clumsily expressed for an opening of an encyclopedia article. It should not say what it is not, what is impossible, etc. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, "drop for drop" and "with complete certainty" do not read well, and you will get routinely blocked for edit warring with multiple editors. Do think about this - brute force never helps to articulate your idea on wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stay civil and constructive? I do appreciate your idea and am trying to incorporate it smoothly avoiding an edit war with other editors (which you already got into, and for which your account might get blocked very soon). Shoutings of the sort "I am the best, you re fools" will only accelerate the proceedings. Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, Snakefan55, that you aren't following WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPOV. As I said on my talk page, you may be blocked if you continue.

Reply on your own talk page to centralize discussion. Please do not keep insisting you are right. On Wikipedia, it's often for editors not to get their way. See WP:Consensus.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, please understand the point, which is people do assume that venom X is Yth most toxic from available test data, be it mice, monkeys, whatever. Science uses whatever data it has, with full understanding that all data are crippled and limited in some way. Off course most venoms have different toxicity to different animals, and off-course all those "most toxic" are no more than publicity stunts. Materialscientist (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is right on the mark, Materialscientist.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this thread. Materialscientist (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard procedures

I noticed that there has been some concern about edits you have made. It is often hard for new editors to work out how things are done on Wikipedia, so if you don't mind I would like to explain a couple of points. I will start with the observation that some of your edits and comments were unwise, but the reaction you received has been most unhelpful because you have made only 29 edits to articles over the last four weeks. Since some of the messages on your talk page were not appropriate for a new user with minor issues, I have removed them (the previous page can be seen at this permalink).

There is a discussion concerning your edits here, but I suggest you just read the discussion and then ignore it unless you are specifically asked a question by someone who has not previously been involved.

In the future, please proceed more slowly. Yes, you will encounter people who do not understand the specific topic, but likewise you may not understand how to proceed at Wikipedia, so it is best to ask questions on talk pages even when something seems obvious to you. People here really hate edit warring: that's when person A makes a change to an article, and person B removes it, then A puts it back, and so on. Using edit summaries is very helpful, but it does not excuse edit warring which is strictly prohibited (and will lead to short blocks—see WP:EW). Particularly when some text in an article has existed for a month or more, when a change is made to that text and the change reverted, the next step has to be to discuss the issue on the article talk page (when looking at the article, click "discussion" at the top, and on the discussion page, aka talk page, click "new section" at the top; remember to sign your comment—see WP:TP). If there is no reply within, say, two days, you could make the edit again, but if reverted, please do not restore your text. In a situation like that, it would be better to ask the advice of an experienced editor that you think might be able to assist. For example, you could click "talk" in my signature and use "new section" on my talk page to ask me.

Another issue is the fact that while it is highly likely that you know what you are talking about, there will be some extremely expert editors in a field like snakes, so seeking their advice should be a priority. One way to try that is to go to an article talk page and look for a suitable project in the boxes at the top. For example, at Talk:Eastern brown snake, you can click "WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles", and on that page, click "discussion" at the top. Doing all that leads to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles where you could ask about an article and why your edits have been reverted. In a discussion, please be very polite—the rule here is to comment on edits (changes to an article), but never comment on editors (people). You can say that an edit is totally wrong (with a reason), but never say that an editor is ignorant or whatever.

Please read the thread mentioned above by Materialscientist. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]