User talk:Jlowe19

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: 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, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your edits to trichloroethylene
Hi, I have added a 'unreferenced' link to the article, since I see you do add a lot of data, but I do not see a references section (yet) (see wp:cite). Moreover, the way it is written now, is a bit in conflict with wp:not, though it does not have to be. Could you split the 'health effects' section into a short healt effects section, only stating the minimum (per wp:not), and rebuild the rest of the section into a description of what it physiologically does to a human body. I guess the main problem that I have, is that this part of the subject may be pushed into an own article, which describes biological effects of chlorinated organic compounds on a human body, I mean, how different would this section be when you would write it for 1,1-dichloroethylene, or 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane? But keep up the good work, see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC) (copied from User_Talk:Beetstra)
 * Hello Dirk,
 * I've added references to the trichloroethylene article for the revised content in the health effects section. Hopefully these address your comment concerning sources and references.  Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments about them.
 * With regard to your comment about the health effects content possibly being in conflict with wp:not: having looked through the guidelines, I'm not clear where the conflict might lie, and we may need to discuss this further.  The problems I see with your suggestion (a shorter health effects section, and a separate section discussing physiological effects) are that the sections would be overlapping, or the shorter more discrete health effects section could be misleading.  There may be some tightening I could do, but I would encourage maintaining the health effects discussion as the single section, as it's now written.  I am interested in your thoughts on this proposed approach.
 * The story for this compound differs considerably from 1,1-dichloroethylene or 1,1,2,2-tetrachlorothane. There is high interest by the general public about TCE right now, particularly about the controversy over potential human health risks.  The potential for human exposure to TCE is much greater than these other two substances.  We know so much more about the risks from TCE compared with dichloroethylene or tetrachloroethane, which paradoxically makes the story for TCE less straighforward.  TCE has become a very polarized topic, and as befits the Wikipedia concept, I've tried to present it in an objective manner.  Again, I am interested in your thoughts here.
 * Drop me a note in my user talk area if you would like to discuss these matters further.
 * Cheers, John Jlowe19 20:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I saw the changes. The story you wrote down is really good, though the order of the sections in the article could be improved.  I have done some things about that, changing order and creating new sections.  The things you have added would push it towards an A-class chemicals article!  But .. there are many references missing, I have done two sections now, adding a cn where there are statements that require a reference.  Many of these references are probably the same, but still.  I have used the " " and mechanism (see wp:cite) to add the references, rewriting the original references section (which contained some links, which are for now in 'further reading'), but which probably should end up in normal references.  I guess you have most of the references requested (maybe not yet stated in the article), could you add them?  There is a copy of the article in my user:beetstra/sandbox, feel free to use that copy for further enhancements so you can copy that version later over the main-namespace version, though you can also do that in the original off course.  If you need further help with the citations, add them in my sandbox version (just add " " and I will show you how to deal with duplicates (in short: the first time you use the reference (wikipages are rendered top to bottom), add " ", the second time you use " " .  The second (and subsequent) calls to the reference will then get the same number as the original).
 * Re breaking up sections. People might be interested in the physological effects, not in 'how they get exposed to it', so for that it is better to split these up.  I know that in your version it is a better story, but people who are trying to find specific data then have to dig things out of certain paragraphs, and I have seen cases, where these tightly mixed (in this case, it would have been easy to find what one was looking for).
 * Reading the sections as they are now, I see that the data is considerably different from other compounds, you can ignore that remark.
 * Forget what I said about wp:not, no problems there. But to explain what I meant, I was worried this would go in the direction of the 'not a manual', wikipedia should not have extensive 'this chemical is bad, do not drink, eat, wash your hair with it, or rub it in your eyes' type of sections, that is what MSDS's are for, and though I do not know how wikipedia's liability for that would be, but I guess they would not like to hear that someone injected it into their big toe, because they thought it was safe; wikipedia did not warn them for that).  That is what I meant by 'minimalisation' of such a section.  But that is absolutely not the case, so, again, 'forget' it.
 * Hope this helps. Keep up the good work.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

\trichloroethylene
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article \trichloroethylene, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at Talk:\trichloroethylene. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note the stray backslash. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)