User talk:Addisonmmccormick
| This user is a student editor in Tulsa_Community_College/English_1213,_Section_642_(Spring_2018) . |
- Commenting on your talk page. Addisonmmccormick (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hello I am trying to figure out how to use a talk page lol, hopefully this works. Thanks. SierraMichelle (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- I am commenting on your talk page. Cameron Rumley (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Addisonmmccormick, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor 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.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. If you want to WP:MOVE your sandbox content to the mainspace, please remember to change the name of the article so that you do not create a mainspace article under a meaningless name like Addisonmmccormick/sandbox. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Also, if the article already exists in Wikipedia's mainspace (as Social media and the effects on American adolescents does), then please either just add your sandbox content directly to that article (with attribution in the edit summary or talk page to any other editors who contributed to that sandbox content) or you can request a WP:HISTMERGE to merge the page histories if appropriate. Please be careful not to create duplicate articles. Bennv3771 (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Addison, I wanted to add to this - I was concerned that the draft is too much of an essay for Wikipedia, as it reads as more of a reflection to the topic. It also uses a fairly casual writing style that doesn't really match the more formal style that Wikipedia prefers. I also wanted to warn you about studies, as these are sort of problematic on Wikipedia. The reason is that studies are primary sources for the claims, research, and other data generated by the researchers. The reliability of the journal doesn't resolve the issue of the source being primary, as the journal is only publishing the information and isn't giving their own interpretation of the study or recreating the information. They pretty much just make sure that the study looks legitimate and that it has no obvious issues (ie, no studies about swimming on the moon or big issues with grammar). Secondary coverage is needed in order to verify the material and to also show that it's notable enough to highlight. Another issue with studies is that they're limited to a very small group of participants and aren't always representative of a larger group.
- I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)