User talk:ChipnukBrayn

Welcome!
Hello, ChipnukBrayn, 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, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  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 check out 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! Graham 87 05:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Medical sources
Hello, thanks for your edits to medical articles. However, I've undone them because they seem to rely too strongly on case studies. Per Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources for medical topics, systematic reviews and met-analyses are strongly preferred in Wikipedia articles. You may be interested in the citation expander, which I use, which helps you enter medical citations in Wikipedia's format; other tools are also available. Graham 87 07:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for being too hasty to undo your edits. On further reflection, I've done the following:
 * I've putback your changes to the Chemoembolization article in tact, because they just mention things like side effects that are common knowledge. I also deleted the case study that you mentioned on my talk page. Wikipedia articles are chronically underwatched; suboptimal edits can persist for months or even years. A good way to check the trustworthiness of a Wikipedia article is to check its page history to see how well it is maintained and the talk page for any discussions; being classified as a featured or good article doesn't hurt, either.
 * I've put back the non-case-study part of the text that you added to Embolization. If there's more that I could put in, let me know.
 * I've put back the text you added to Radiation therapy. That article is on my watchlist not because I know anything about the subject (which I don't), but because it had some unfixed vandalism when I went to read it one day. The sources and text you added seemed OK but then I wasn't too sure after noticing some of the case studies you added.
 * I've only put back the word "liver" in your edit to Management of cancer. The article is meant to contain a broad overview of cancer treatments and management strategies, not go right into the nitty-gritty (in other words the Radiation therapy article was a far more appropriate place to put your text). See Summary style.
 * I hope these edits are alright. Graham 87 15:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)