Leslierrn

Welcome

Hello, Leslierrn and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students.

Go through our online training for students.

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. Please also read this helpful advice for students.

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, if your class doesn't already have one. It is highly recommended that you place this text: {{Educational assignment}} on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and aid your communication with them.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sleep hygiene

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sleep hygiene you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Melody Lavender -- Melody Lavender (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Melody, Thanks so much for taking this on! I liked your suggested new header, and I will work today on re-formatting the recommendations in a new way other than bullets. As for the most frequent reference I use, I'm a little torn. I have had a few classmates that were told by their reviewers that they should not cite as many original journal articles, and that review articles are preferred. The Hauri chapter that I cite the most was a review of many sleep hygiene studies and findings, so it seemed like a perfect source. I can add original journal article citations more throughout the page though, in addition to the Hauri chapter. Please let me know if this would be preferred. -- Leslierrn (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sleep hygiene

The article Sleep hygiene you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sleep hygiene for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. ^Melody _Lavender 20:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I've never (in the past four semesters across six different classes) seen a student pull this off, taking an article to GA. I contacted Professor Karney to let him know you certainly deserve an A for this performance.

Since you've come this far, you have an opportunity to submit a hook from this article to the Did You Know WikiProject. It's less difficult than what you've already accomplished. Getting a hook on the Main Page could get you between 1000 and 5000 views. Since there are limited opportunities to participate in DYK, I encourage you to do so not later than the 19th. If you need help, let me know. I am really impressed with your work. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chris! It looks like it will still be a bit of a battle keeping the status, but I have been teaching about sleep hygiene for years, and put a lot of effort into translating that knowledge. I did submit the article to Did You Know a couple weeks ago - should I re-submit? I really appreciate your investment in helping us!! leslierrntalk

Nope, it can only be done once. I transcluded the nomination onto the talk page so the community is aware of it. DYK (like GA usually is) operates a little slow. It's processing. I hope you understand now why I said to avoid GA when I visited your class. You've done some good work and you just happened to land between editors of differing opinion. There have been harsh words elsewhere about what happened, which is unusual for classes I've worked with. Sometimes Wikipedia can be a very quick-moving and heated place. I hope as the semester ends that you stick around and continue to edit. There are always more articles that need work, there are many places within Wikipedia to contribute besides the regular article creation, and you've barely scratched the surface of our user communities and internal politics. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris, you're awesome. Thanks for taking the time to write this note. It's hard for us to know what to expect, so hearing you explain this puts it all in perspective. It also encourages me to stay involve with Wikipedia. I have started editing wikipedia pages I come across that I know could use some updated information - something I never would have done before taking this class. Thanks again! leslierrn (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

re-opening GAR

Sleep hygiene, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Leslierrn; I see you're back at work, and am glad you weren't discouraged by the unfortunate "kerfuffle". I'm pretty busy for the rest of the weekend, but will pop over when I can to have a look at your updates, and add what I can. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

likewise, I will be happy to work with you. Please do discuss things on the article Talk page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly, I was discouraged to wake up the next day and see so much content deleted before receiving feedback. Some of the changes I saw also reversed changes I had made from feedback from other reviewers, so there seems to be some difference in preferences. (E.g. I had been told that "Aspects of sleep hygiene" is better than "Recommendation" in order to avoid a "how to" feel. Now I see that the title has been changed back to Recommendations). I will discuss on the talk page, and hope that you two will do the same before making large edits. I am really hoping that we can get the article to a place that is presentable by everyone's standards, so that wikipedia readers will have access to all of this sleep hygiene information. leslierrn (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

the bit about talking first before large edits are made, is the wrong "head". Please see WP:OWN. With regard to the WP:NOTHOWTO aspect, the content of that section comes very close to that... the title of the section is a bit of a sideshow on that issue. see you on Talk! Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I see that in one of your edits you referred me to the "BOLD" wikipedia page. There it says "Explain your changes before posting them: People often make an edit first, and then explain it on the talk page. This may result in some fast-off-the-hip reverter reversing you right while you are in the middle of composing a talk page explanation. To protect against this, reverse the order: first edit the talk page, and post your edit immediately afterward. This way, your explanation will be already present at the moment of the expected revert." So it seems that my request to use the talk page in this fashion is not in the wrong "head." So yes indeed, let's see each other on talk. leslierrn (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Leslie, I saw that request from Melody to change to "aspects of sleep hygiene", and it was just wrong. See WP:MSH-- we always avoid duplication of words in higher levels of the headings. That suggestion was about as wrong as any I've ever seen on an article review, but that happens in Wikipedia's content review processes, where anyone can say anything. Had that occurred at FA (where there is more than one reviewer), others would have corrected that mistaken advice.

Again, I'm sorry you were caught in the middle of that, and I can understand that it's hard to know who to trust. Talk page discussion will help. Melody, unfortunately, had never before engaged any article review process. I was for four years the Coordinator (called a delegate in my day) of the featured article process, so I hope I was in a position to know a little bit about Wikipedia's manual of style :) Melody criticized that my standards are too high for GA (relative to FA), but that overlooks the plain fact that there are sections of WP:MOS that GAs must comply with, that she overlooked, in addition to sourcing standards that apply to all articles. And there was some prose tightening needed (encyclopedic writing style is a bit different than what one encounters in some other environments).

I'd be glad to help out, but will be pretty busy for the rest of the day, and look forward to engaging on article talk. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sandy, thank you for taking the time to write this out even when you are busy. I imagine that expertise come with years of experience, and you are clearly very familiar with wikipedia rules and processes. My goal was to create a good article, and so if there are specific changes that can be made, I would really appreciate that feedback. I'm still unclear with the sections of WP:MOS that you are referring to (as I am newer than you), so any clarification and specification there would really help.. Take your time, I will come back to this after you are able to join again later today.leslierrn (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

And thank you as well, Leslie-- it has been a pleasure to work with a knowledgeable and responsive new editor! I'm a bit too demoralized and exhausted right now (having read some other articles from the course you're in last night), so I am thinking of sitting out a day and weighing in with you tomorrow. A question (hoping your answer will energize me): are there tons more articles and students out there than currently listed on the course page? Is there any chance of any of the other students learning from your example? Or am I beating my head against a wall that climbs higher than I can see ? Since the course page indicates only 21 students, I'm wondering if you see each other frequently, and if there's a chance of shared knowledge happening ? Education Program:University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)/Psychology 220A (Fall, 2014) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

about your note at the GAR. I have treated and will continue to treat the article you created like any other, with respect to editing. Here, we are all about realizing WP's mission to generate excellent content for the public good. Not about anybody's grade or ego. And please note that the article will persist regardless of whether it is GA or not. There is no need to worry about "salvaging" anything - the contribution is made and is available to the public right now. Thanks for that! That said, if the GA status is important to you, I hope our work helps the article retain that status when it goes through a normal review. Jytdog (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to add to this a bit. I have been editing WP for a pretty long time. Please put yourself in my shoes for a minute. Generally people come and add this bit or that bit to an article, and if somebody else agrees or disagrees, it gets Talked through on Talk, generally pretty calmly, and everybody moves on. Nobody is trying WP:OWN anything. people come from all over - who knows where - and make more changes, and yet more and yet more. Nobody owns the article. When people create a new article, we sometimes run into OWN issues, trying to get them to let their baby go. That's how it generally goes.

After our interaction yesterday, I have been reflecting, trying to imagine where you are coming from. You come from school - from a class. You are doing what you and I have done - what every student has done since we were 5 years old - namely create work that is very much his or her OWN, hand it in, and get it graded by the teacher, and handed back to them. And it darn better be the student's OWN work! If it is not, that is a huge problem. Maybe you are published, in which case it is still the same - it is about your article - you really do OWN that. And when I look through your comments above and on the Talk page, that seems to be where you are still coming from. You seem to be treating the article like it is your article - like you are responsible for it, in a way that would be really good, if this were an academic setting.

But it is not. It is nothing like that, here in WP. I am writing this to ask you to change your "head" with regard to the content you contributed here. Now there are editors here in WP who kind of continue this school model, where they create articles, and try to get them to GA and even FA, and then display links to those accomplishments on their User pages. And there is a whole engine here in WP for that process, and it is built into the "career advancement" pathway somewhat (if you go for admin or arbcom, people will look to see how many GAs etc you have created). I personally don't give a rats ass about any of that - to me it is just about creating excellent article content. I am just saying that there is some room for the academic "head" here.. but you still have to adapt to being in Wikipedia now, where that work product belongs to the community. You don't have to fight for every jot and tittle - this is not your article that is going to be published under your name, etc etc. You, User Leslierrn, have already made a great contribution to the public good that is WP (and again thank you for that!), and you have a kajillion anonymous co-authors now who are 100% coequal with you. I am sorry you got channelled right into the GA process because I think it adds to the difficulty of making the transition from academic work to WP work, which is just... different. Some of Sandy's comments to you, have also been about making this transition.

A last note. Based on your comments above, you have a lot of experience with sleep hygiene. You may want to read WP:EXPERT, an essay to help subject-matter experts make the transition to WP - it identifies key challenges that experts face, and points you to key ways where your expertise can really be useful here (you may be surprised by some of them). Anyway, good luck! Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, No own issues here. (Although I fear you may now assume that I'm being defensive and lacking self-awareness, or whatever other assumption you may have about my intentions - you seem to have a lot of them). I'll ask that you don't spend too much time on trying to project what is going on in my mind. I don't think it's productive for anyone. As we discussed yesterday, the more you can provide feedback about content instead of about me, that will help facilitate the editing process in the most productive way. There is a big different between feeling like I own the page, and feeling like work I've been trying to contribute is being thrown away. I'm so willing to revise content, delete unsupported claims within content, etc, and I have been responsive to community feedback from day one. We are likely running into a difference in styles problem. In general, your approach of criticizing work instead of providing constructive suggestions can be very off-putting. As I had mentioned yesterday, the absence of your commentary on the talk page in conjunction with your edits was what was frustrating for me. I see now that you are endorsing use of talk page for when users disagree, but yesterday you told me I was in the wrong "head" to suggest that we commence in this manner. Please, I'll ask you to stop trying to figure me out and change me, stop commenting on my "head", and instead focus on what we CAN do, instead of what I should not be doing. It's counter-productive. The funny thing is that my goal is to create excellent article content as well, because clearly I have no stake in moving up in the Wikipedia world. My belief is we can accomplish just that through positive collaboration, instead of smearing student work on talk boards and then deleting content without proposing revisions that could improve that content. Leslierrn (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

as you will. What I objected to was that you asked me to justify changes before making them. Please read WP:OWN - that is a key "sign" of that issue. More generally, I really try to understand where people I am working with, are coming from, especially when interactions are unusual and difficult, as they were yesterday. My reflections above are freely offered and you are free to ignore them. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had asked that. You were the one that directed me to Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. There I saw that in the detailed step-by-step recommended approach, the whole process starts by "1) Make only changes you absolutely need to. A bold edit doesn't have to be a huge edit, and keeping your edit focused is more likely to yield results than making an over-reaching change. 2) Explain your changes before posting them: People often make an edit first, and then explain it on the talk page. This may result in some fast-off-the-hip reverter reversing you right while you are in the middle of composing a talk page explanation. To protect against this, reverse the order: first edit the talk page, and post your edit immediately afterward." I'm not sure why you referred me to this page if you disagree with the method, so now I'm not sure what you recommending. Regardless, I will follow the feedback of others on the talk page, as we seem to be making headway now. Leslierrn (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

big exhale. Newbie wikilawyering to OWN is not a happy thing. i am trying to tell you that your behavior has not come into full alignment with wikipedia norms. you can hear me, or not! anyway, good luck. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wish you were hearing me too, Jytdog. I've pointed out how you've given conflicting advice, and you've left me without clarification. I have no idea what "Newbie wikilawyering to OWN is not a happy thing" means. From the Examples_of_ownership_behaviour list, I have done only the last example in the statement list - none of the others. So in the spirit of aligning with Wikipedia norms, I'll ask again, as stated on the OWN page, "Unless an editor exhibits behaviour associated with ownership, it's best to assume good faith on their part." Leslierrn (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am assuming good faith. You are new. Trying to help you transition into WP is not saying globally that you suck or that all your edits suck. Putting your article up for GAR is not saying that the article sucks; it is saying that in my view it didn't meet GA standards, which is not your fault. I am trying to help you see yourself as a Wikipedia editor. You can listen and try to learn or not. It is your life and you will do as you will. At this point, I am done trying to help you on this level. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I cannot resist trying to help you see. If if you really want to get involved, it turns out that Wikipedia is a pretty complex place. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that over the years, Wikipedia has developed lots of policies and guidelines (PAG) to help provide a "body of law" as it were, that form a foundation for rational discussion. Without that foundation, this place would be both a garbage dump of random content and a wild west - a truly ugly place. But with the foundation, there is guidance for generating excellent content and there are ways to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within it. One of the hardest things for new people, is to understand not only that this foundation exists, but what its letter and spirit is. (I emphasize the spirit, because too often people fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering" - they read a policy or guideline, grab some thing that they feel justifies what they did and quote it, without dealing with the spirit of what we do here) The more I have learned about how things are set up here - not just the letter of PAG and the various drama boards and administrative tools, but their spirit - the more impressed I have become at how, well ... beautiful this place is. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to really get aligned with Wikipedia's mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" are defined in PAG!). Anyway, I do hope you slow down and learn. There are lots of people here who are happy to teach, if you open up and listen and ask authentic questions, not rhetorical ones. And really, good luck. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I'm not sure why you insist on "helping me to see," but I'm not going to guess, because I do not know you. I took a break from Wikipedia yesterday to finish my masters thesis and take a step back from this. I really think we are running in circles, and as SandyGeorgia pointed out, we are likely talking passed each other. For whatever reason I have responded openly to all other editors I have encountered here, and I as I've said before, I think there is something about your style that really comes off as attacking instead of instructing or helping. If your intention is to help others, respecting the other person goes a long way. I have fallen short here too, and want to recognize that I am sure you have a lot of insight and experience that could help improve my work at Wikipedia. I am hoping that if you are to continue to communicate with me, that we we can shift to more genuine advising about writing and content, and not about fixing a human being. Often, an approach of constructive feedback is more likely to elicit behavioral changes as well as changes to the object of the feedback (in this case the sleep hygiene article). As you have asked me to listen, I will ask you too. The insinuations that you interject throughout comments - that I am not asking genuine questions, or that I'm not learning - they are really not helping anyone. I hope that makes sense. Best Leslierrn (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that you took my comments negatively. as i wrote above, i will let this lie. See you on the article Talk page, to discuss content. good luck. Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Leslie. I came here from the discussion at the Education Noticeboard, and I noticed your comments about how frustrating it can be to have different Wikipedia editors telling you contradictory things about what changes should be made to the page. If I understand correctly, you are a Ph.D. student. Speaking as a Wikipedia editor who also happens to have been, in real life, a longtime university professor in a health-related field, I just thought I'd tell you that you are likely to encounter much the same kind of contradictory feedback when you start getting involved in receiving anonymous peer review of your journal manuscripts or research grants. More than once, I made a change in a grant proposal in response to the review, only to have them tell me to change it back the next time. Anyway, I hope that you will come to feel that your editing experience here, was, on balance, a happy one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, You are right. I have indeed also encountered contradictory feedback on my revise and resubmit manuscripts. Although there is less opportunity for things to get heated in those types of communications, which is a good thing. (the things I've wanted to say to reviewers!) Outside of recent editor clashes, I've generally found the Wikipedia community to be constructive in their collaborative efforts. I appreciate you taking the time to check-in.Leslierrn (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

General stuff

Hi again, Leslie! I hope to get over to the article this afternoon, but for now, I wanted to inquire if you have yet learned how to step back through the diffs on an article so you can read edit summaries and see who did what and for what reason? I try to include edit summaries that link to the style pages I'm referencing (although sometimes I forget), so going through the edits, diff by diff, could be instructive. Another thing is that encyclopedic writing is much "tighter" than other kinds of writing, so many of my copyedits are to reduce redundancies or eliminate term-paper-like summaries and conclusions (which in some cases can be original research).

In case you haven't yet learned how to step back through diffs, you can start with this diff, and then click through each "next edit" to see who did what.

I left a note on the GAR page, and will catch up more later. I'm very encouraged to see that your good work continues! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I got through a wee bit, added comments in to previous sections, but I'm afraid you'll have to scan the article talk page now to see what is done/undone. More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, Yes, I have been reading edit summaries. In general, yours have been more clear, so thank you for that. Some of the changes from other editors had edit summaries that were less descriptive and more vaguely negative, so those have been harder for me to interpret. I see that you made a number of new recommendations on the talk page, and those look instructive in a helpful way. I hope to look at those some time in the next day or so. Thank you for understanding that my work is well-intentioned, although I'm not as experienced with all the Wikipedia writing nuances. Getting closer. Leslierrn (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again SandyGeorgia, Thank you for your continued dedication to the students in the UCLA course. I wanted to let you know that I will be responding to all your recommendations on the article talk, I'm just currently editing my masters thesis with is due today (!). After that is turned in, I'll be back on here to review the Sleep Hygiene talk page. I can only imagine how draining it must be for you to simultaneously be encouraging student editors while being overwhelmed by the amount of guidance we could still use. Thank you for sticking with it. If I can be helpful to you in return in an way, such as providing a summary of everything I would have wanted/needed to know going into this process. Just let me know. Best Leslierrn (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, also responding to your questions from the thread above. (Briefly at the moment though). 1) The number of students on the course page is accurate (there are no more students than those listed), but I'm not sure why their articles are not appearing. The final project update of wikipedia is today, so that does leave less room for editing (and it is finals week). However! If students know that their content will be deleted if they do not revise their language and improve their sourcing, I imagine that would motivate some. I will not be seeing the other students today, but I will see a few this week. I could also write an email outlining some main points, and forward it on to the class. It would be ideal to pass this knowledge on, not just to current student, but to future students. Maybe we could consider making a class "lessons learned" compiled document for future years. I will think on this. Leslierrn (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

ah ha, so the course end date listed at the course page is wrong then. If the course ends today, I doubt that any of the less motivated students will do much more-- what do you think?

Back on sleep hygiene, if you can browse the entire talk page to tie up loose ends there, tomorrow I hope to have new energy to weigh in again. There are still several outstanding issues on article talk, but interspersed in the various threads there. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Article guidelines

Hi. A Wikipedia editor, SandyGeorgia, has very helpfully offered some useful guidelines for editing, which are in response to editing by students in your class. All of these may not apply specifically to articles that you have edited, but many of them are likely to be very helpful tools for improving your contributions. Please look over these at Education_Program_talk:University_of_California,_Los_Angeles_(UCLA)/Psychology_220A_(Fall,_2014)#Some_suggestions. Thanks. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Misc

Leslie, when you get a moment, could you add a citation on this text? I'm not sure which of your sources will work, but know you'll know where to find one. Much appreciated, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, added this to my to-do list for later. thank you! Also, that list of articles that were edited by our class - all the sleep related ones were edited by me, linking to SH page. I may have forgotten to log in for those. I will try to track through and make appropriate citations. sorry for this extra work on your part for catching these things. Leslierrn (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't sweat the little stuff :) I'm just (over and over) trying to make the point to staff (Wiki Ed) that they should at least have profs fill out their course pages. We have courses with hundreds of students, where we don't even have a list of the students or the articles they've worked on. The reason this is a rub is that the Wikimedia Foundation put out a pretty bogus study a few years back showing very little student copyvio: well, if they don't keep good records, how good are their future stats going to be? Another WP:MED editor did a study himself, and found copyvio on pretty much everything touched by students. I'd like for WikiEd to start at least having the course pages filled in. For example, I just found from that list parent management training, which is right up my (Tourette syndrome) alley! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Encouragement for you

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Leslierrn, your persistence in improving Wikipedia's content on sleep hygiene, even after being put in an awkward position for a new editor, is admirable! Wikipedia can present a very steep learning curve, which you have handled with aplomb. I hope we can count on seeing you around more often! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

PS, Leslie, if you want to turn your userpage link blue, instead of red, you can copy and paste the barnstar text above at User:Leslierrn-- a blue-linked userpage sometimes indicates someone who intends to stick around! I hope you will!) I have only a few nitpicks left on the GAR; looking good! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, @SandyGeorgia. thanks so much for this! Honestly, this is exactly the type of thing that I can reinforce motivation. I had stayed off Wikipedia for a few days as I finished finals and completed travel to my family. Signing in today, I was preparing myself to find the energy again to get back to editing various articles (I may help out with some of my classmates). Seeing this really encourages me, as it shows that Wikipedia efforts matter beyond individual articles. Exactly what I needed. Thank you for your continued work with me and other students! Leslierrn (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I do hope you'll stick around! Please ping me if I can ever by of any assistance. And now it's my turn to get busy in real life, since I've been staring at the walls and coughing from the flu for a week! Have a wonderful holiday, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I will. Rest up, and wishing a swift recovery for you! Best, Leslierrn (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sleep hygiene

The DYK project (nominate) 16:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)