User talk:LawrenceBbrook

Welcome!
Hello, LawrenceBbrook, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor 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 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) 18:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Response
Hi! I wanted to respond on your talk page and give some advice.


 * Since this topic does brush up against and go into the world of psychoanalysis, I would like for you to take this training module on editing medical and psychology topics.


 * My number one recommendation would be to be very careful with sourcing. Make sure that you use the highest quality sourcing, typically academic and scholarly sources. Definitely utilize your college's databases for this. I'd use Google search results somewhat sparingly, as there's no guarantee that the average search result would be usable, especially as a topic of this type would need specific types of sourcing. The above module covers the sourcing needs in a bit more depth, however you want to avoid popular press sources since we can't guarantee how much of an authority they are on the topic or how much editorial oversight and verification they provide for their writings. Keep in mind that popular press websites are more likely to sensationalize or inadvertently (or deliberately) misrepresent psychology related topics in order to raise their readership. So to this extent I would not use a popular press source for anything other than historical information and even then, be very careful about what you use. For example, Elite Daily has received a lot of criticism in the past for using pseudonyms and fake photographs for their writers, so they're not really something I would use for a topic like this.


 * Avoid original research. We can only summarize what has been explicitly stated in the source material. For example, you used Google Trends to write a section on the frequency of the term's use. Using this to qualify that the term is only infrequently used is original research since Google Trends only counts the amount of times that a word is searched on Google (ie, not every search engine) - and even then, this specific term. It doesn't take into consideration when a foreign language translation of the term is searched, nor does it give any sort of analysis on the data.
 * In other words, it doesn't say if people are looking for the term specifically or if they're searching for pansexuality using this term. It also doesn't say if it takes into account a single person searching multiple times (instance) or if they have a way to screen this so the figures only show the number of different people (users) searching using that term. An example would be counting how many people go into a room - if we go by instance then we run the risk of counting the same person multiple times if they enter and exit the room several times. Specific details like this can be important depending on how it's meant to be used, such as counting the number of instances of someone driving over a road to see how heavily used the road is or by counting the amount of people subscribing to a service to see if there's justification to expand or continue coverage.
 * Since it lacks all of this information and context, it should not be used to signify frequency of use per Wikipedia's guidelines and including it would be seen as original research.


 * I would look for coverage that specifically discusses the psychoanalysis term. Since the term has been used sometimes interchangably with pansexuality, be very careful with what you add to the article.

I hope that this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Juanita Díaz-Cotto


Hello, LawrenceBbrook. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Juanita Díaz-Cotto".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Masum Reza 📞 21:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)