User talk:Daov94

Welcome!
Hello, Daov94, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for unsupervised homework
Unless your homework assignment is being supervised by an experienced Wikipedia editor, there is a reasonable probability that your contributions will be removed the moment that your class ends. Here are some tips: Pass on this advice to your fellow students and to your instructor. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not overwrite mature articles. Make incremental changes or post suggestions on Talk pages.
 * Rely on WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources. Please not insert primary references.  They will likely be removed.
 * Remember that Wikipedia is not a textbook, we present knowledge, we dont explain it. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.


 * Hi there!
 * Firstly, thank you so much for your input on this information and subject. This has been a big project that has been supervised by an experienced Wikipedia editor with our university, and further supported (to this level of detail) by our professor, too; but we always welcome feedback from the Wikipedia community. I discussed your feedback with our group, but we were a bit befuddled by your comments.


 * The changes we intend to make, which would be the inclusion of all information in my sandbox related to the environmental impacts of the ink in inkjet printers, would be an augmentation of an already detailed article on inkjet printing that, before our contribution, had absolutely no previous mention of environmental effects or impacts. We would be the first to discuss environmental effects, so I do not think that we would be overwriting a mature article, but merely instead, adding new information to the same level of detail as is already present (and frankly to the same level of detail that is present on articles of more chemistry-related topics such as photochemical reactions and reactive oxygen species in general).


 * Concerning the sources, yes, most of our sources are primary. However, there are two main reasons why we feel our use of primary sources is justified.  Firstly, as is in the policies concerning the usage of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, all primary sources utilized in our contributions are from reputable scientific journals, and any citation of them are at usages that state the findings of that paper (whilst avoiding plagiarism and close paraphrasing of course), and furthermore, make no interpretations on the data.  Secondly, we have attempted to look for secondary sources because we are aware of the policy, and have included some secondary sources in the article related to the mechanism and actual chemistry.  However, for the environmental and biological aspects, because the literature is currently rather limited, finding metastudies/syntheses/review articles is extraordinarily difficult.  If we were to stringently adhere to Wikipedia policies preferring secondary sources, we would not be able to really include, for example, any of the studied effects of phthalocyanines in the environment on the cyanobacteria (which is arguably one of the most, if not the most important, part of the entire section about environmental effects of printer ink). Nonetheless, despite the lack of these secondary sources, we strongly view that the implications, which have been directly stated by the primary sources, make the content important enough to keep on Wikipedia despite being primary sources.


 * Concerning your critique of the textbook, we feel that there is some confusion regarding the levels of detail that would categorize an article as being informative versus teaching. We feel that the information we have provided in our contribution is still on the side of informative. Detailed, yes, but not teaching. Our contributions explain the reactions that take place (thus informing), but do not provide instructions for how to carry out these reactions (which would thus make it teaching). Further, our contributions do not pose any questions or following answers to read as a textbook, as described by the “What Wikipedia Is Not” manual, section “Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal”, point 6. Instead, our contributions simply provide factual information for what happens in the reactions. If you feel that some aspects overstep being informative, traverse into the areas of teaching, and would therefore be excessive for Wikipedia, please point out these parts, and we can begin discussion for how to slim down the information to being more informative, rather than teaching.
 * Thanks for your time! Daov94 (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi. Wikipedia policy forbids "original research". You say (emphasis added):

If this is the case, you can't write about it in Wikipedia. It's unfortunate, but it's one of the most basic rules. It's unfortunate, but that's a foundational policy. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Right! Thanks for pointing this out, this had escaped our eyes during our preparation of the Wikipedia entry as we had prepared the Wikipedia information as a version evolved from a different draft with different writing styles.
 * Daov94 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)