User talk:Geeknpink
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Minnesota/Technology_and_Ethics_in_Society_(Spring_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Geeknpink, 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) 15:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Test
[edit]Not to worry, this is only a test. Geeknpink (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank your for your interest in improving wikiepdia. Unfortunately I had to remove the while section about scientific evidence. It was written exclusively basing on primary sources. Please read our policy WP:PRIMARY. Wikipedia articles must be written basing on Wikipedia:SECONDARY sources, which summarize and evaluate original research published in primary sources. There are many serious reasons for this. Please also read our policy about reliable sources Staszek Lem (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If you have any questions, please ask them in Talk:Laughter yoga. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. Now that you got the idea about the difference between primary and secondary sources, let me indicate one more type of secondary source. Many research articles have the "Overview" or "Introduction" sections or paragraphs which contain summary of what was done by other people earlier. These parts are also considered to be secondary sources. However a caution must be exercised about using them:
- Make sure that these parts do not focus on the research of the same authors or the same research team, i.e., it is not self-promotion.
- The overview is not a simple list of references; it must include some kind of evaluation of the works mentioned, so than one may judge the importance of these works which makes them worth mentioning in wikipedia.
- It is always a good idea to verify that the authors have serious credentials. The less credentials the authors have, the more important to have peers highly evaluate their article.