User talk:BeccaW1986

Welcome!

Hello, BeccaW1986, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! BeccaW1986, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:PANDAS

BeccaW1986, I want to be sure you have seen the Wikipedia policy and guideline pages you have been pointed to repeatedly at Talk:PANDAS, and this post, as your talk page contributions are veering towards disruption.

WP:NOTAFORUM; some opinion is at times necessary to explain points, but the purpose of talk pages is to improve articles, not to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
WP:MEDRS is Wikipedia's guideline page about how we use sources for medical content. To my knowledge, almost all of your posts -- including this lengthy list -- focus on primary sources, while you have seen on talk the discussions experienced editors have had about secondary reviews.
WP:ADVOCACY will help you understand the characteristics of editors who seek to advocate for a given position in contrast to edits which seek to reflect the consensus of secondary reviews.
WP:COI is a page that explains how to handle a conflict of interest when editing Wikipedia; if you are engaged in PANDAS advocacy in real life or elsewhere on the internet, it has some good pointers.
Specific proposals for content changes will get more traction than general rants on talk pages; for example, please change "The sky is pink" to "While the sky can be described as pink during some sunsets, it is often described as blue" [source].

Plenty of editors are working towards improving this difficult topic and concerned the families get accurate information towards optimal treatment. If you have behavioral concerns, they belong on user talk; article talk is for discussion of how to improve articles using reliable sources -- in the case of biomedical content, meaning WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Please read the linked pages thoroughly. Hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and for pointing me to the various guidelines. I appreciate your efforts in maintaining high standards and promoting Wikipedia’s policies. However, I would like to respectfully point out a few areas where there appears to be some inconsistency between the points you’ve raised and the actions or inactions within the discussion.

1. WP:NOTAFORUM: I fully understand that the purpose of the talk page is to improve the article, and I agree that discussions should be focused on content rather than personal disputes. However, I have noticed that some of your comments seem to be addressing personal behavior rather than directly improving article content. If I’ve misunderstood, I apologize, but it seems the tone of some comments may not align with the collaborative spirit emphasized in WP:NOTAFORUM.

2. WP:MEDRS: You’ve raised valid concerns regarding my reliance on primary sources. I understand that WP:MEDRS encourages the use of secondary, peer-reviewed sources, and I am actively working to ensure my contributions adhere to this standard. That said, I’ve observed similar issues with the sources referenced by others, including yourself at times, and it may be helpful if we both revisit the sources we’re using to ensure we align fully with WP:MEDRS.

3. WP:ADVOCACY: I understand the importance of avoiding advocacy, and I strive to contribute neutrally to the discussion. However, I’ve seen some comments that suggest I am advocating for a specific position, which I disagree with. My goal has always been to reflect the consensus of reliable secondary sources. I would appreciate it if we both remained vigilant in avoiding any bias, especially in light of the emphasis on neutrality in WP:ADVOCACY.

4. Additionally, I’ve raised concerns previously regarding other users inflammatory posts and tone on the talk page, which I believe disrupts the constructive environment we aim to maintain. Given that you’ve highlighted the importance of following Wikipedia’s guidelines on civility and appropriate conduct, I’m curious as to why these concerns regarding other’s behavior seem to have not been addressed in the same way. I believe it would be beneficial for the discussion if we all followed the same standards of conduct and tone, in line with WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:COI, ensuring the talk page remains focused on improving the article.

I am fully committed to collaborating in a constructive way and improving the article using reliable, secondary sources. I hope we can work together to ensure that the guidelines are applied consistently across all discussions and contributors. BeccaW1986 (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have had to briefly point to policy regarding some talk page behaviors; when those issues continue even after having been pointed out then it's time to take them to user talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. I’ve observed similar issues with the sources referenced by others, including yourself at times; if I've used sources inappropriately, please point that out. I know of one instance where I used the words of the Tourette Association to illustrate the use of the term working hypothesis compared to a substantiated diagnosis, but I have not ever to my knowledge advocated that article content should be based on primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. I read your edits as consistently advocating for a point of view without indicating secondary sources backing those points. That may not be your intent, but that's what I'm seeing when you put up, for example, long lists of primary sources that stall discussion and clog the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. To my knowledge, I've pointed out behavioral guidelines whenever it was called for. Have you read WP:COI and are you editing in accordance with that, or might you have an advocacy position with any PANS or PANDAS organization that might be clouding your view? I appreciate your knowledge of the primary sources and the topic, and your desire to collaborate constructively; it can be hard for new users to understand what can and can't be done on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia that reflects secondary sources-- not a blog, not a webhost, not news, and not a collection of primary sources (see WP:NOT). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have addressed most of these comments. However, a point of note: while WP:COI is important, making such suggestions without clear evidence risks creating a hostile or accusatory environment. It’s critical to avoid implying bad faith without concrete proof, as this goes against WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and could alienate potential contributors BeccaW1986 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]