User talk:Cgonz527

Welcome!
Hello, Cgonz527, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with Wiki Education; 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. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Response
Hi! I wanted to respond on your talk page. You were asking about your choices for articles in these topic areas:


 * Self-care – Body composition • Physical fitness
 * Nutrition – Calorie restriction • Dietary supplements (Amino acids, Minerals, Nootropics, Nutrients, Vitamins) • Diet (nutrition) • Dieting
 * Physical exercise – Stretching • Overtraining • Aerobic exercise • Anaerobic exercise • Sport
 * Health science - Nutrition

Firstly, since this delves into the topic of health and self, you must review this training module before progressing. Editing in this area requires that you be very particular and selective with your sourcing and writing styles. You can also read more about this here.

Now as far as the topics go in general, you need to be cautious. For example, If you're planning on editing the nutrition article you will need to be careful that you don't go into too much detail and that you specifically look at the one on human nutrition. I think that some of the content areas you're thinking of adding seem a little broad and prone to being a bit too detailed for articles that would only give a brief overview of these topic areas. An example of this would be that while the article on physical exercise would briefly cover types of exercises, it wouldn't go into too much detail because there are subject specific articles that would go into more detail on these topics. Similarly, the article on health sciences would really only need a very short mention of nutritionists in its article since it's more of a list type page. These articles are also larger, so it may be harder to find content to add. That's not to say that you absolutely can't edit them, just making sure that you're aware of all of this ahead of time.

I can recommend some articles as well that definitely need some TLC: (pulled from here)


 * Discretionary food: a term for foods and drinks not necessary to provide the nutrients the human body's needs, but that may add variety to a person's diet.
 * Left without being seen: a healthcare term often used by emergency departments (ED) to designate a patient encounter that ended with the patient leaving the healthcare setting before the patient could be seen by a certified physician
 * Debunkify: a campaign established in July 2006 aimed at dispelling tobacco and secondhand smoke misconceptions in the state of Ohio
 * Sonoma diet, a fad diet
 * The World Starts with Me: a computer-based sex education and AIDS prevention program aimed at young Ugandans
 * Gargling

I hope this all helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome Cgonz527! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are registered editors!

Hello Cgonz527. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Vaselineeeeeeee, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page and someone will try to help. To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own personal sandbox] for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your userpage.

Please remember to: The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes  at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
 * Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

 Sincerely, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)   [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vaselineeeeeeee&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

Environmental science
Hi - I need you to stop reposting the content to the environmental science article. The material has been challenged, so reposting it would just result in this being seen as edit warring. The content does need work and I'll give you some notes shortly. I just needed to impress on you that it's important that you stop reposting the content. If this continues you may end up receiving a temporary block from editing. As far as grading goes, rest assured - your instructor is not grading you on what sticks or was posted live. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Here are my notes:


 * Wikipedia uses a formal third person writing style. Avoid using "us" and "we", as this can make something seem too casual and also make it easier for something to be original research or seem like it's us trying to reach out to the reader.


 * The article for ES is meant to be about the academic discipline rather than the environment itself, so a section about the impact of pollution would be considered off-topic. This article should cover things like specific study areas within the field, terminology, degree requirements per country, methodology, and so on. A decent example of what should be in an article of this nature is the one on social science.


 * Be careful of studies, as they are seen as primary sources. Studies should generally be avoided unless they're accompanied with a secondary source that reviews the study or comments upon the specific claim that is being stated. The reason for this is that studies are primary sources for any of the claims and research conducted by their authors. The publishers don't provide any commentary or in-depth verification, as they only check to ensure that the study doesn't have any glaring errors that would invalidate it immediately. Studies can also really only be true for the specific time and area, as a number of things can change depending on the when, where, what, and who. For example, a researcher may be keen on finding something and end up missing something small that could make a major difference. A study that uses participants may end up getting different answers from a group of wealthy people than they would poorer people. Research conducted in California may produce different results than research on the same or similar topic in another state or country. There are a lot of things that can change up study findings, so that's part of the reason that secondary sources are needed, as they can put this into a wider context.


 * It's important that we remain neutral. I don't think that many people would disagree that pollution is a dire problem that needs to be resolved, but we need to summarize things neutrally so that it doesn't come across like we're trying to persuade the reader to see things in a specific light. To be honest, this was something I really struggled with when I first began editing, as I'd use words, inflections, and phrases that were often seen as neutral off Wikipedia but were seen as non-neutral on Wikipedia. (I also had issues with sourcing and establishing notability, so it's honestly something all of us on Wikipedia have had to get used to over time.)


 * I hope that this helps explain things! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good summary of the issues, thanks, Shalor. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)