User talk:Dsylve44

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Welcome! My name is Cindamuse, and I'm an Online Ambassador. We are a group of experienced Wikipedians who offer assistance, support, and mentorship for newcomers. You don't need to read anything; you can just jump right in and try to improve Wikipedia. If you need help, you can talk with us right now, or you can leave me a message on my user talk page. Have fun! ~~
Editing cheatsheet Forgot how that code worked?	Summary of policies and guidelines A quick reference for Wikipedia's "rules"
Find the page for your course Forgot the link to your course's page?	Starting an article Guide to starting your first article
Chat with us: Ask a question on the classroom IRC channel or on the regular help chat . Just enter your Wikipedia user name, fill in the words you see in the image, and click connect.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Dsylve44, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Karthik Nadar (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Whats up

Hello Dsylve44 :) you and i have the same psychology class! Lt176714 (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)lt176714

Hi Dsylve44! I didn't think I needed to create a new section for just to say hi, so I'm adding to Lt176714's post. Thanks for posting on my home page. I think you needed to add your signature (four tildes) to complete the assignment.

Jtsstl (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Week 3

I eventually found your critique but the link you had to it didn't work. Good comments though, and you even signed them so that's cool. Scores will be on Moodle. --MTHarden (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Contribution Review

Sorry to see that someone flagged your contribution for deletion. There is a section "Benefits" under Video game and the topic Video game behavioral effects also has a section on benefits. Maybe you could move it there before someone deletes it?

That link was to an interesting article.

Anyway, I checked your contribution. It passed the duplicate detector and I didn't see any close paraphrasing. Three "mores" in the first sentence might be a bit much. Maybe,

Video games have increasingly become the subject of scrutiny as greater numbers of people use computers, game systems, and hand held devices.

I didn't change it because it doesn't have a reference, so might need more extensive editing.

I did see that the article talked about testing "casual" video games, but only one of the three they tested reduced stress (Bejeweled). That was the one that reduced stress by 54%. The others were quoted as "did affect psychological tension, depression and other aspects of mood, in some cases dramatically."

The first sentence is not related to material in the article, nor is some of the second. Which would also argue for making it part of one of the above sections that already exist on Wikipedia or providing an additional reference.

I also put this on the talk page of the article.

Jtsstl (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

KESigmund Review

Sorry about the fact that your article looks like it might be taken down even before it is set up. I think since this is a new article, it's alright for a first go, but it does have quite a bit of work to take into account. I tend to agree that so far it is written like an essay, but that comes from working on it over time. I played around a bit with the restructuring of the sentences. Some of the just sounded a bit choppy to me. So being the english freak I am, I fixed it so that it sounded a little better when said out loud. I'd like to see more added to this article. Like maybe you could explain a bit more about this study in the actual article. I went to the link to find out more about it and it was quite interesting, so it has potential. So I think your best bet at the moment is to add a bit more from that study or maybe even find a more in depth source to expand on it a little more. That might get rid of the deletion notice and just make it a better article in general. Good luck! I'm also posting a copy of this to the article's talk page as well.--KESigmund13 (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)