User talk:Meatypath
Meatypath, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Meatypath! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Lightbreather (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) |
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Meatypath, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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 complete the student training, 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 Materials
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Start the conversation — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Council (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys! Let me know if you guys have any preferences on what you want to do! I'm pretty game for anything! I guess a couple easy ways to narrow things down would be seeing your preference on doing an object, a theory, or a person. Let me know what you think!
Thanks, Ivan2001:4930:52:0:8C7E:E75B:67B1:A4B (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would prefer to add on to a stub article, if possible. I haven't gone over many of the suggested pages on Blackboard, but I think possibly an object/event or a person might be the direction I'd like to go in. Theories seem like they would be hard to focus in on... but I am open to suggestion! Katiexwong (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm definitely down to do an object or a person. I think too, that if we did a person, it'd be pretty easy to link it to this class and possibly use that as one of our tertiary sources. Granted, I'm assuming the big names in psychology are taken, however, maybe the influences of famous psychologists would be pretty easy to pin down? 2001:4930:52:0:189:5241:87CD:551 (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, so I'm digging around at work for stubs. I landed on the ink blot test.. which surprisingly does not have a lot of stuff on it. That's definitely do-able! Or caffeine induced anxiety disorder! Its up to you guys!
Thanks, Ivan --208.54.80.213 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I also agree that doing the article on a person might be the easiest way to approach this assignment. I think it would be easy to incorporate it with what we are learning in class. As long as they are a somewhat larger name in psychology we should be able to find plenty of information for the article Amber.l.cusey (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- I also looked at the ink blot test and there really isn't any information on it. Would you guys be OK with moving forward with this idea? I think we also have to have a second idea in case someone else has the same topic? Amber.l.cusey (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I was looking through the stubs, and I think an article on Kurt Goldstein would be really interesting. Let me know what you guys think! Amber.l.cusey (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Advice on ink blot test: I had actually listed this article on Blackboard, but took it off because there is already a well-developed article on the Rorschach Ink Blot Test on Wikipedia. There's a lot of reference material on the Rorschach, but that would be redundant - you'd just link to the main article on the Rorschach. There are some other ink blot tests out there, but they are little known and used. I suggest finding another topic.J.R. Council (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Goldstein: Much more potential here. I actually had a group working on this article last spring, but did not approve them to publish to the main article space. There's a lot of good reference material on Goldstein, including a section in chapter 12 of your textbook. J.R. Council (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the advice Dr. Council!! With that being said, are there any objections to doing our page on Kurt Goldstein? Sorry the inkblot test didn't work out, but I think this might be more information-rich anyway. Katiexwong (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh and then also, our second choice could be the caffeine induced anxiety disorder? One question I have though is if this specific disorder is actually included in the DSM-5? I have tried to look it up but am getting mixed results... But maybe that doesn't matter as much. Katiexwong (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
No objections from me, I think moving forward with Goldstein would be a good idea. There is a lot of interesting information on him. I am not sure if caffeine induced anxiety disorder is in the DSM-5, I was also getting mixed findings. I am not sure if it matters or not, but we could ask Dr. Council if we can't do our first choice. Amber.l.cusey (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm down with Goldstein! Sorry about the late reply and not being logged in (This is Ivan!) I did a quick pubmed search for caffeine and foundthis. It's not really optimal. But I'd be down with figuring something else out if that does manifest to us having to use our second choice! I'll email Dr. Council with our choices!
Thanks guys, Ivan 2001:4930:52:0:C91:D36A:B915:866 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Go with Goldstein[edit]
Goldstein is a good choice. He has an interesting personal history, and has contributed in several areas. Should have no problem improving this article significantly. Nice job on discussing potential topics! J.R. Council (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)