108:
235:
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
182:
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
177:
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
220:
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
167:
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
Knowledge handles science & health related content and sources. I know it is not an easy
198:
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
162:
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);
172:
on
Knowledge. 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
173:
instance, several editors with more scientific grounding, and better grounding in how
Knowledge 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
236:
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!
43:
128:
203:. 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).
99:
26:
132:
206:
I guess I am not used to how
Wikipedians approach dialog. In real life, I would have expected a response like the following:
122:
38:
178:
somewhat misdirected; and b) no guideline or policy is going to directly cover every issue that arises (see
33:
22:
222:
77:
169:
81:
93:
85:
147:
29:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
212:
AuburnMagnolia, your suggestion is good, but we think the policy is adequate; thanks anyway OR
163:
ditto understanding what exactly is going on in a given scientific publication. (And based on
241:
188:
65:
179:
116:
54:
92:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try
174:
200:
143:
69:
121:
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join
237:
184:
58:
107:
245:
230:
192:
152:
115:
If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to visit the
221:
into the same trap that I did. That's what I care about at this point.
215:
AuburnMagnolia, your suggestion is terrible and we will not use it
89:
209:
AuburnMagnolia, we like your idea, can you propose some text? OR
48:
96:, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then type
106:
55:
Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles
164:
66:Manual of Style for medicine-related articles
8:
76:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
183:you continue to learn and thrive here!
104:before the question on your talk page.
44:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Knowledge
7:
14:
34:Quick introduction to Knowledge
1:
246:13:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
231:12:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
193:17:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
153:07:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
39:How to write a great article
25:to Knowledge! Thank you for
139:
21:Hello, AuburnMagnolia, and
264:
226:
111:
110:
124:WikiProject Medicine
168:thing to hear, but
158:discussion on MEDRS
94:Knowledge:Questions
70:general style guide
170:competence matters
112:
27:your contributions
150:
142:Again, welcome!
84:your messages on
255:
148:
103:
86:discussion pages
46:, an essay from
263:
262:
258:
257:
256:
254:
253:
252:
201:personal attack
160:
117:Medicine Portal
97:
19:
12:
11:
5:
261:
259:
251:
250:
249:
248:
223:AuburnMagnolia
218:
217:
216:
213:
210:
204:
159:
156:
120:
74:
73:
62:
59:general advice
52:
41:
36:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
260:
247:
243:
239:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
219:
214:
211:
208:
207:
205:
202:
197:
196:
195:
194:
190:
186:
181:
176:
171:
166:
157:
155:
154:
151:
145:
140:
137:
136:
134:
131:or say hello
130:
126:
125:
118:
109:
105:
101:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
71:
67:
63:
60:
56:
53:
51:
50:
45:
42:
40:
37:
35:
32:
31:
30:
28:
24:
16:
161:
141:
138:
123:
114:
113:
75:
64:Knowledge's
47:
20:
88:using four
78:Wikipedian
127:(sign up
80:! Please
180:WP:CREEP
165:this dif
17:Welcome!
199:like a
175:WP:IDHT
23:welcome
238:Jytdog
185:Jytdog
100:helpme
90:tildes
242:talk
227:talk
189:talk
149:T@lk
133:here
129:here
82:sign
49:PLoS
144:JFW
244:)
229:)
191:)
146:|
135:).
102:}}
98:{{
240:(
225:(
187:(
119:.
72:)
68:(
61:)
57:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
