User talk:Ctpen15

Welcome![edit]

Hey Connor it's Gannon...I'm just posting here to say hi!!! GV1330 (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)GV1330[reply]

Hello, Ctpen15, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.

I work with the Wiki Education Foundation, and help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment. If there's anything I can do to help with your assignment (or, for that matter, any other aspect of Wikipedia) please feel free to drop me a note. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles[edit]

When editing articles related about medical-related topics, please bear in mind is that the standards for citations for these is higher than the general standard for sources in Wikipedia articles. Focus more on review articles and less on the latest discoveries. Findings like these are very difficult for a non-expert to put in the proper context without synthesizing a whole body of research literature. While we encourage the use of secondary and tertiary sources in general, this is especially important in medical-related topics. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of articles[edit]

Hi Ctpen15. Thanks for your additions to the Oxybenzone article. However, as you might have noticed, Smokefoot removed part of your contribution because it was based on a single case study on one person. Remember that Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources (please see the booklet I linked to in the previous section). A study that looks at a single subject is, by its very nature, preliminary.

Rather than discussing individual studies, you should base your information on secondary sources, reviews written by experts that put individual studies, like these ones, in context. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Team Project[edit]

Hey Team Member just wanted to connect on your talk page for the Group Wikipedia Assignment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyEagle55 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New articles[edit]

If you're creating an article about a new chemical, the first question is whether the chemical in question is notable enough to have its own article. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability, especially the section on creating stand-alone pages and decide whether you think you can justify a new article. (You don't actually have to articulate the argument, but make sure you're convinced that you could make the argument.)

If so, then the next step id to take a look at the Manual of Style for Chemistry. As you build your articles, try to follow the manual of style. Try to maintain the "feel" of other articles about chemicals. Create something that fits in with the rest of them. If you don't feel like there's enough information out there for you to fill out key sections of the article, that might be an indication that we shouldn't have a stand-alone article for that chemical. You might want to start the article out in a sandbox, to give you time to work on it in peace.

Whatever you decide, I'm glad you're contributing to the project. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To echo what Ian said, if one of the degradation products is itself the key bioactive, toxic, or environmental concern, it probably could have its own article here. As a cross-reference, there already is a fr:Chlorthal. DMacks (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]