User talk:CABoge

Depression in PD

Thanks for your contribution, since it is a really good one, and in addition well referenced. However the signs and symptoms section is quite long right now so a secondary article specifically on symptoms was created a few months ago (see Signs and symptoms of Parkinson's disease) and only a summary was left in the main page. I am going to move your addition to this secondary article since it is problably too specific for the main one.

On the other hand you seem new to wikipedia. If you are interested in medicine you might want to collaborate with WP:MED; the medicine project, where people interested in improving these aspect of the encyclopedia collaborate. If you have any doubts you can ask there or ask me in my talk page. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ADHD

Thanks for your addition to the article. I need to point out, however, that your edit is technically a copyright violation because it is copied virtually word for word from the source. Wikipedia policy is that "you may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences". Rather than immediately delete the addition (as is often done with copyvios), I wanted to give you a chance to make some changes. Since it is no more than a couple of sentences, I think if you put the direct quote within quotation marks, that will solve the problem. Or, you might view more detailed information from the original source, the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, and reword. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS

Hi, I note your additions to rheumatoid arthritis and retroperitoneal fibrosis. Could I encourage you to have a look at WP:MEDRS? This is a guideline that gives some useful tips about what constitutes a reliable source for medical articles. I have the feeling that neither J Musculoskel Med and Consultant are particularly good journals - the former does not appear to be indexed on MEDLINE for example. I have removed the RA edit because it simply does not reflect practice in many countries such as the United Kingdom. With regards to the retroperitoneal fibrosis source, could I ask you to find a better source? If I recall correctly, the 2006 Lancet review wasn't bad. JFW | T@lk 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact the Lancet covers this, so I hope you don't mind that I've switched the reference over. JFW | T@lk 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)