I have also completed a postbaccalaureate research fellowship at the National Institutes of Health in neuroendocrinology and, in September 2012, I will begin a Fulbright-Schuman fellowship in Belgium and Germany studying European Commission-sponsored mobility incentives for young scientists and researchers in Europe. I graduated in 2009 from Wayne State University in Detroit, MI with a Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Biological Sciences and a Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Journalism. I am fluent in English and Arabic and have an intermediate command of German.
I have been contributing to the English Wikipedia since 2007. As a member of the founding Board of Directors of The Wiki Society of Washington DC (which eventually became Wikimedia DC), I assisted in laying the basic foundations of the organization. During Wikimania 2012, I served on the leadership team as Deputy Coordinator. At Wikimedia DC, I started the Embassy Outreach Initiative, a program designed to connect with embassies based in the DC area. My principal goals are to expand outreach to and participation of professional organizations, non-profits, and NGOs who support free access to global knowledge, open science, open culture, and other free/global knowledge initiatives.
The following are things that bug Thespian, a good editor of Wikipedia. Since those things bug me as well, I will list them here for your enjoyment :). I hope all wikipedians can abide by these suggestions, as they are very helpful and make a lot of sense! Thank you kindly!
Currently, things that bother me:
People confusing 'original research' and 'unattributed' (the one is not proof of the other). If you state 'Xxxxx is original research!' and I enter Xxxxx into Google and find three pages about Xxxxx on the first page, I'm likely to tell you you're a twit. I don't care if you don't want to do the citations, but take a second and see whether there's a reason to really believe it's original research, as opposed to just someone overassuming the extent of common knowledge, or believing that internal linkage was enough (on the Hidden Track page, many of the examples of hidden songs linked to the album pages, which also mentioned the hidden songs, however some editors of the page felt, without doing anything about it, that since the hidden songs were mentioned by method, linking to the albums, which often just said, 'oh, there's a hidden track', was insufficient. That's not original research, that's just requiring a better contextual citation).
There've been a LOT of people of late wandering around who never seem to contribute anything to the site except to walk around with a big yellow marker adding 'citation needed' (and frequently in places where its completely unneeded). I wouldn't mind it so much if, I didn't spend piles of time adding cites that were available in seconds on Google to Wiki articles where people have been threatening to delete things in the :Talk pages. Deleting always weakens an article, and there's been so much of it going on on citations that would have taken less time to find than for the people threatening 'cite this or I'll start deleting!' took, that its really starting to bother me. (this taken near verbatim from Talk:Hidden_track, after someone did just that and it took me less than 15 minutes to cite half the article)
 is NOT the only tag available to you, and lots of them are far more helpful for those of us doing the work of getting your pesky citations. Please go and READ all the things that are available to you at WP:TD#For_inline_article_placement the next time you decide you want to just scribble all over something. Telling me you think something is [original research?] will give me a lot more to work with. You have no idea.