User talk:Vincentportero

Edits to Brugada syndrome
Hi Vincent, I see you've re-instated your last edit to the article on Brugada Syndrome that was previously reverted by Doc James. The reason this was deleted is that Wikipedia has a policy that the information included in medical articles should be backed up by a reliable secondary source - i.e. a review article, guideline document from a national or international body, or a textbook. Whilst the addition you have made is interesting, it is only backed up by your paper which is a primary source. This is not to cast doubt on your work, which has been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, but just that the facts need to be linked to a secondary source. I tried to find mention of variants in the gene you describe in recent review articles but couldn't find any. When the relationship between this gene and a Brugada is described in a reliable secondary source then at that point it would be a good addition to the article - until then, it will need to wait and I'm sorry but I've removed it.

On another note, whilst it is very tempting to cite your own papers on Wikipedia, this is not encouraged as it is viewed as a potential conflict of interest - I didn't appreciate this when I first started editing. A better approach if you want to cite a relevant secondary source which you are an author on is to flag it up on the talk page beforehand declaring the conflict of interest and seeing if other editors agree that citing that paper will improve the article.

I hope you continue to edit Wikipedia, I'm sure your specialist knowledge could benefit many cardiogenetic-related articles. PeaBrainC (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Answer to Edits to Brugada syndrome
Dear PeaBrainC Thank you for your message. I am glad to see that the review process is active and I thought the initial rejection was due to protocol mistake in the way I should cite the article. Concerning the citations of the paper I included in the list of genes associated with Brugada syndrome. It has actually been already cited in 3 independent medical reviews on Brugada syndrome. Concerning the fact that I included myself this reference in the main page of Brugada syndrome, my only motivation is to trigger awareness on the fact that mutations in KCNAB2 gene could indeed trigger Brugada syndrome and that it should be considered as a susceptibility gene exactly as the others for potential genetics screening. I will let you decide if yes or no this gene should be listed and I will let you do so. Please let me know your decision after examination. Best regards Vincentportero (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Vincent, thanks for providing those references - they're just the sort of thing we want to cite. Now that there is a wiki-appropriate reference available then this information certainly improves the article.  I will add the row back to the table with a citation to one of the secondary sources.  PeaBrainC (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)