User talk:Kmlose93

I like your idea about a Matrix movie night. Will look into scheduling one...ScottPKingPhD (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topics that I find most interesting to work on are: Cognitive test Emotional reasoning Lacunar amnesia Selective amnesia The meaning of anxiety. I also have a lot of interest in Body Dysmorphic Disorder and Eating Disorders, and would like to be able to work on that a bit if at all possible. Kmlose93 (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid cognitive tests - that will would take a lot of work just to list all the various ones. Emotional reasoning, lacunar amnesia, and selective amnesia look like each would be ok. BDD and Eating Disorders are much more than stubs in their current states. If you know there are things you can add to them that fit in Wikipedia's guidelines, go for it, but be aware that those two articles get a lot of eyeballs and anything you add would probably be commented on and scrutinized a lot.ScottPKingPhD (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Kmlose93, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.

I work with the Wiki Education Foundation, and help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment. If there's anything I can do to help with your assignment (or, for that matter, any other aspect of Wikipedia) please feel free to drop me a note. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles

When editing articles related about medical-related topics, please bear in mind is that the standards for citations for these is higher than the general standard for sources in Wikipedia articles. Focus more on review articles and less on the latest discoveries. Findings like these are very difficult for a non-expert to put in the proper context without synthesizing a whole body of research literature. While we encourage the use of secondary and tertiary sources in general, this is especially important in medical-related topics. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lacunar amnesia

Hi Kmlose93. Thanks for your additions to the lacunar amnesia article. While adding content to the article is good (especially since it's mostly just a few quotes and an "in popular culture" section) please keep in mind the importance of both citing appropriate sources (and citing them appropriately) and of writing in an encyclopaedic style.

Encyclopaedia articles are written in a formal style. "Causes of this type of Amnesia is it's a result of brain damage..." - causes, being plural, shouldn't be pared with the singular noun, "is". "It's" and other such abbreviations are fine in informal writing, but are rarely appropriate in formal writing. Second person ("your memories and your emotions") is good for conversational writing, but again, doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia entry.

You also need to be careful with your sources. Cite them properly - Prezi is a piece of software, not an author (citing it is like citing Microsoft Word); the actual author listed is Adolfo Arreola. Which raises the second question you need to ask of your sources - why should we trust Adolfo Arreola (or any other random person on the internet) as a reliable source for this information. The handout I linked to in the previous section discusses the importance of using high-quality sources in articles - preferably recent secondary sources which have been published in reputable, peer-reviewed sources. In addition to that handout, you might want to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

Part of the fun of contributing to Wikipedia is the fact that your edits are visible right away. Having your edits reverted is no fun. The better the quality of your edits, the more likely they are to stick around. And maybe, you'll see the definition you added to Wikipedia cited in an article on a major news source one day. But the key to that is adding good content that's backed by the best sources available. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

feedback on progress

Kate, it looks like SandyGeorgia deleted what you added because it wasn't written properly and it wasn't from a reliable source. Ian has some good feedback above for you. Please keep it in mind, and with your next efforts, add the bibliography and outline to the Lacunar amnesia talk page first for feedback before doing anything in the main space. ScottPKingPhD (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]