Talk:Aluminium nitride

Biological role and health hazard

It would be great to explain what type of damage it can cause to health. Why does it have one on NFPA 704 diagram? 62.204.40.41 (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your addition. Content of that specificity absolutely requires inline sourcing. You're welcome to repost the info here, and perhaps we can assist with the details. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to provide source and extend the section. Please respect other editors efforts. You've reverted it in one click. I've spent 5 minutes creating it. 62.204.40.41 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And once you've established sourcing, then it can be restored. Unsourced details on chemical toxicity aren't something we expect the reader-or other editors-to take for granted in their accuracy. We don't know if your sources were good or bad. I assume you read various sources in order to arrive at your information, it should be straightforward to provide them. Here's what you wrote in the article:

AlN is generally safe to handle. Its fine powder can cause skin and eye irritation, vomiting, coughing and even lung damage according to some reports. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for AlN dust or powder of 15 mg/m³ as a time-weighted average (TWA) over an eight-hour workday and PEL for airborne fraction is 5 mg/m³ on average accordingly.

Place your sources inline with the text. Your first sentence states that it is "generally safe to handle", followed by a list of generally unsafe outcomes. Commentary about "some reports" is vague and requires substantiation.

It is incumbent upon the editor who wishes to add material to the article to provide the sourcing. Expecting your peers to do the work for you isn't a good approach to collaboration. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not your student and you aren't my teacher. I am not here to please you and you aren't here to rate my contributions. If you doubt the presented facts you can add template ^{[citation needed]} if you just want some sources you can add them yourself. Blatantly reverting edits and removing an important section from the article is an act of vandalism. 62.204.40.41 (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. Vandalism has a specific definition; removing unsourced content isn't one of them, and using that as a rationale is a fast path to sanctions. I'll repeat, dumping unsourced claims into an article, and in particular ones that you obviously repeat from memory, then expecting others to clean up the mess, is unacceptable. You claim you spent 'five minutes' creating the three sentences you wrote. Take another two minutes and add the sources that support your claims. Editors are expected to conform to wikipedia policies in their contributions, and not to engage in personal attacks. The aggressive resistance to including your sources is baffling. If you don't know how to add sources, then ask for help. There's no shame in not knowing how to do things on Wikipedia, we were all beginners at some point. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a beginner in wikipedia and you are not my teacher. Step down from your altitude, you have no reason to command me to add sources to an undisputed fact just to please you. Bye. 62.204.40.41 (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not a beginner, it further calls into question your pointed refusal to cite your content. "Undisputed fact" is not a rationale when you use the term "some reports" in your addition.

We are trying to build the best encyclopedia possible. Refusal to cite your sources is not a path to that. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]