User talk:AuburnMagnolia

Welcome!
Hello, AuburnMagnolia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then type  before the question on your talk page.
 * Quick introduction to Wikipedia
 * How to write a great article
 * Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLoS
 * Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)

''If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to visit the Medicine Portal. If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).''

Again, welcome! JFW &#124; T@lk  07:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

discussion on MEDRS
Whatamidoing was right, in that I was asking you to present specific language to add. But I also did intend a bit of admonishment. Understanding the scientific consensus is not easy for nonscientists to do (and takes work even for scientists who work in a field other than one under discussion); ditto understanding what exactly is going on in a given scientific publication. (And based on this dif it appears that you are not familiar with what a systematic review looks like; it doesn't look at at all like the study under discussion)   Add to that, that it takes time and experience to understand how Wikipedia handles science & health related content and sources. I know it is not an easy thing to hear, but competence matters on Wikipedia. It is totally fine to not know stuff (I am ignorant about a lot of things) but please don't be aggressive in taking a stance, when you are still learning. There are lots of people who are happy to help (and I am trying to help) and I hope you stick with it. (really!) In this instance, several editors with more scientific grounding, and better grounding in how Wikipedia handles sources, than you, have explained at length both on the talk page of the Autism article and at MEDRS why this source is primary, and no one has agreed with you. You are kind of close to WP:IDHT which is not a good place to be. What I am trying to say, is that a) complaining about the guideline when a bunch of people have taken time to give you long and careful answers already, and when you are struggling with the scientific literature, and are still learning how we deploy the guideline, is somewhat misdirected; and b) no guideline or policy is going to directly cover every issue that arises (see WP:CREEP which is a big problem here). My sense (and I apologize if I am wrong) is that you are mostly unhappy with the exclusion of this source and I am sorry about that. Please be patient with your learning, and please know that no guideline or policy is going to explicitly cover every case. And I hope you continue to learn and thrive here! Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was trying to test the waters with my idea before proposing specific language. Instead, my ideas were met with a lot of resistance and I was trying to explain myself more fully. I think your admonishment is quite unfair -- especially since questioning my competence on medical issues sounds a lot like a personal attack. The core issue is whether or not the policy needs clarifying, not whether I am an expert in medical research (focus on content, not contributors).
 * I guess I am not used to how Wikipedians approach dialog. In real life, I would have expected a response like the following:
 * AuburnMagnolia, we like your idea, can you propose some text? OR
 * AuburnMagnolia, your suggestion is good, but we think the policy is adequate; thanks anyway OR
 * AuburnMagnolia, your suggestion is terrible and we will not use it
 * Any of these options would have been better than the response I received. Admonishment certainly is not warranted. I honestly don't care all that much as to whether that source could have been used. Knowing that it can't be used, I would like that help to clarify the policy so that others don't fall into the same trap that I did. That's what I care about at this point. AuburnMagnolia (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't find there is any single "Wikipedian" culture or way of talking... there are a lot of editors and they all have their own styles of communication. Above I tried to explain why I reacted negatively to your approach.  You can take my advice or leave it, as you will - we are equals.   I was not making a personal attack and I am sorry you interpret it that way.  If you had brought the suggestion for amending MEDRS straight, I probably would have reacted differently, but instead it unfolded as I describe above.  Anyway, good luck! Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)