User talk:Amyc29

Hi! If you would like to leave me a message, please leave it at the bottom of the list.

A kitten for you!
This one looks a little like a puppy. You should upload some dogs

Rtbhive (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 


 * Hello Professor, I hope you will have a wonderful weekend! I would very appreciate if you can take a look at my draft so I have a chance to improve it during the weekend.

Thank you so much! Puzankova.v (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Professor, I would really appreciate any feedback on my draft, linked here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Farley.ty/sandbox. Thank you so much! Farley.ty (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Prof. Carleton, I would really appreciate some feedback on my work so far. Please find my draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oliverk25/sandbox

Thank you very much and have a good weekend! Oliverk25 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Professor, I would really appreciate any feedback you may have on my draft. Thank you! Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Corbin_Apple/sandbox Corbin Apple (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Professor, I'd love your feedback on the section 'moral issues' that I added to the article 'Autonomous cars'. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_car) Thank you so much and have a wonderful weekend! Timot2016 (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Hello, I'm Auric. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Auric   talk  18:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amy! Rtbhive (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Peer reviews by your students
Hi again Amyc29. I understand as part of your project you are asking your students to review their fellow classmates' work like did here for Latin American economy. This is OK, but you might want to remind them that Wikipedia article talk pages are not really forums for general discussion about a topic, and that it's OK (actually encouraged) for editors to directly make improvements to articles. Article's are not owned by anyone in particular, so they can be edited by anyone at anytime. Mistakes may be made, but there should be no problems as long as they were made in good faith and are not being constantly repeated. Moreover, we as editors try not "praise" article creators too much on article talk pages because that also might give the impression of content ownership. A polite word or two is fine, but anything more than that is probably more suited for the editor's user talk page. Finally, Wikipedia does have formal processes for peer review and article assessment, so it might be a good idea to ask your students to maybe rephrase their comments in a way that does not imply any type of formal review/assessment. Maybe it would be better for them just to provide suggestions for improvements and leave out the reviewing/praise stuff all together, so as to make it easier for other members of the Wikipedia community to participate any such discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Marchjuly--thank you for your thoughts re: peer review. For the initial peer review phase, I ask students to make remarks on the user talk pages (not article talk pages), so our thinking is in accord. But as you point out, mistakes are made (all part of the learning process) and I absolutely assume good faith with all of my students as they are very earnest about their Wikipedia work. But thank you for taking the time to reach out, and I will be sure to remind them of best practices for offering peer feedback.Amyc29 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to editathons at BU
HI! I'm traveling to Boston to host an editathon at BU on April 21 and April 22nd. I hope you can join us and bring people! Looking forward--Heathart (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Please share the following
With all your students. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
 * 1) Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
 * 2) We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do.  Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.  (For the difference between primary and secondary sources, see WP:MEDDEF.)
 * 3) Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS). High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
 * 4) The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
 * 5) More generally see WP:MEDHOW
 * 6) Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
 * 7) We use very few capital letters and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
 * 8) Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities.
 * 9) Do not use URLs from your university library's internal net: the rest of the world cannot see them.
 * 10) Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article.
 * 11) Please format citations consistently within an article and be sure to cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books; see WP:MEDHOW for how to format citations.
 * 12) Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
 * 13) Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edit at Sugar substitute was reverted because the sources are weak. Also, please try to improve your editing by practicing in your sandbox and getting feedback from other editors. Here is another tutorial that may be useful to your editing. Please use MEDRS sources, i.e., systematic reviews and/or meta-analysis of completed, high-quality clinical trials, described here and in the video provided above. --Zefr (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Difficult editors
A few weeks ago you had an exchange with editor Jytdog on his talk page...which he later deleted saying it made him angry (though most of us don't try to hide negative feedback by removing it from our talk page). Please be aware and let your students know that we're not all like Jytdog and that he is about the most abusive editor I've ever run into, and I've been here for over 10 years. Please tell your students to keep plodding along and expect their work to be corrected and deleted at times--it happens to me all the time. And of course I do it as well. Tell your students that editing Wikipedia will help strengthen their character!!! (And I'm not just totally kidding when I say that { ) Gandydancer (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your note, @Gandydancer. It really made my week! I know--and tell students--that correction and critique is par for the course when working in Wikipedia, but this is the first time I've encountered an editor that was so negative and unwelcoming. But people like you more than make up for a few difficult editors. Thank you again, and I will make sure to pass on your encouragement to my students. All best, Amyc29 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Amy, Today I read through the history of edits for this article and I really do think that you should make a report on this rather wretched example of the way that an experienced editor has treated the efforts of a new editor. I suppose he could have been excused to some degree if the new editor actually were just terrible and refused to take criticism or if he were actually generally correct in the changes he made, but that is not the case at all.  For example, first calling the Personal life section "gossip" and deleting it, then yelling and swearing about it and adding odd wording and a run-on sentence, and I can't remember what all.  I hope that your student has noted that after all this it pretty much reads as she wrote it in the first place.  Also, noting that the lead is too short and does not meet WP:lead guidelines, I see that appropriate copy was removed.  I'd suggest that your student roll up her sleeves and add some of it back, though I can well imagine that after the way that her efforts have been ridiculed and treated with contempt she may have no desire to do any more editing.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Student editing
This is in regard to edits by your students in the Wiki Ed/Nor/ENGW 3307 Advanced Writing in the Sciences B (S) course. Some of them (at least 2) have chosen to edit on medical topics. That is fine, but your course page does not seem to have mention the need to follow the WP:MEDRS standard when writing on such topics. I see above on this page that this has been mentioned to you in the past, but your students will have no way of knowing this unless you tell them. This can cause friction with experienced editors, particularly those who specialize in medical topics (which i do not). I became aware of these edits in response to requests for review at the Teahouse, which were probably a very good idea.

I have been an online course volunteer in the past (before the current dashboard system). I am a host and frequent responder at the Teahouse, and an Admin. I would be only too glad to assist you and your students if I can. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Advanced Writing for the Health Sciences
I suggest that part of the postmortem of students having created or edited existing articles in the health sciences would be for the students to revisit the articles a week later to see what if any reverts or changes were made to their edits by other editors. From looking at three, the edits to Vitamin needed a lot of trimming, ditto Dry needling (which included new content based on primary sources, i.e., individual clinical trials, rather than following WP:MEDRS). The best work by far was the new article Tissue engineering of heart valves by Carokim. A second suggestion is that perhaps students should not select articles that are already Good Articles (Vitamin), as these are likely to have hyper-vigilant and opinionated editors (like me) having these on a Watchlist. David notMD (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Post by one of your students at the Teahouse
I wish to draw your attention to WP:TW where posted, asking about the process for dealing with a proposed new article in connection with a project for your class, if I have understood correctly. Do you have arrangements in place for review of student-written draft articles? Perhaps is fulfilling this role? Can I be of assistance? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi DESiegal and thank you for your note. Yes, I do have arrangements for in-class review of student-written articles, though I did direct students to the Teahouse in case they wanted to solicit additional feedback from the broader WP community. In the past, my students have found respondents on the Teahouse to be quite helpful.Amyc29 (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am a regular responder at the Teahouse, and I certainly try to be helpful. I have also done AfC reviewing. If I can be of assistance in doing out-of-class reviews to supplement any in-class reveiws, i would be happy to help, time permitting.
 * By the way, when responding to a post on your talk page, it is helpful to ping the person whose talk page it is not, to ensure notification. In this case I re-checked the page, so I saw your response. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the ping! Most of our classes incorporate the peer review training module, and of course my job is to ensure that all contributions by students meet Wikipedia standards. Thank you for being a helpful contributor at the Teahouse. While my main goal is that students successfully complete the assignment, I am always delighted by the few that continue to edit after their course ends, and I think it's in part due to a helpful and welcoming community response!

Speedy deletion nomination of Amyc29:Amyc29/sandbox2


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Amyc29:Amyc29/sandbox2, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dede2008 (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Student SallyLittle
All of SallyLittle's edits to Whole30 have been reverted, and explained to her why in response to her query at Teahouse. She saw the article as it existed as biased, but the editors who reverted her edits saw her work as promotional, not neutral point of view, and based on references that were not WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:WikiProject Your new project" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Your new project. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)