User talk:Khuang35

Hello! Feel free to leave me a message here, and I will respond in a timely manner. I prefer to keep conversations in one thread, so watch the page for my reply.

Palilalia
Hi, thanks for your work on Palilalia. I wanted to make sure you are aware of Wikipedia's guidelines on editing medical articles, including: I've removed some text that was either speculative or wrong or about stuttering rather than palilia or not sourced to reviews, and I also note that some text that was in the article prior to your editing was removed even though correct, but I don't have time to work on that. You can follow up on the article talk page, Talk:Palilalia, but I wanted to be sure you were aware of these guideline pages. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:MEDMOS, particularly the part about what sections we use and in what order.
 * 2) WP:MEDRS, our guidelines on medical sourcing standards, on the importance of using secondary review sources rather than primary studies or case reports.
 * 3) This page may help you better understand MEDRS:  Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches.
 * Thanks for the edits you made, I'm new to Wikipedia and trying my best to follow the guidelines. I'll make more edits over the next month.
 * Unfortunately, you simply reinstated the incorrect edits. Have you had a chance to read the info above?  MEDMOS explains how we organize medical articles: see the section on Disorders (but also reading the entire page will be helpful).  We don't use primary sources or case studies widely in medical articles-- they often contain speculative information (as did several of those you used), and we use secondary reviews to avoid problems such as those.  Also, your citation style is incomplete; please have a look at the Diberri template filler which will give you a correct citation (including links to free full text when available) from a PMID.  Please discuss your edits on article talk (Talk:Palilalia) so I can help you improve them before you reinstate them.  You are using primary sources, case reports, and articles not about palilalia as sources, and your text is not always supported by the sources you're using.  On the talk page, you can propose changes and I will help you improve them to meet Wikipedia guidelines and policies.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read over the MEDMOS page, and have done my best to adhere to its standards. However, I'm rather new to this, so I appreciate your help. I'll post any additions I suggest into the talk section, along with a reason why I believe it to be correct for review by the Wikipedia community. And as for my sources, I do realize some of them are primary sources, however a few of the additions I made previously were sourced from text books and other published, secondary or tertiary works. I feel the use of some primary works will be needed for this article, as information on this topic is scarce. I've used Pubmed, Web of Science, Medline, and BIOSIS in search of articles, and most only turn up 4 pages of results, and most of those results discuss Tourette's syndrome.


 * Which leads me to the main point that's confusing me. I do realize Wikipedia has a standard for which sources to use, but would it be all right to include a piece of information if 3+ primary studies have confirmed it?


 * That's an interesting question. I would say yes. I would say one could possibly even cite a brand new primary study by itself, if done properly, per WP:MEDREV, as I have done with a recent NEJM study here with the sentence that begins "In 2012...". Why was that the question that was tripping you up? Maybe I somehow could clarify something at User:Biosthmors/Intro_Neuro better. Thanks for asking the question! Biosthmors (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)