Hello, Cartographile, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Clubjustin3 (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: No need for the canned condescension. Here at Wikipedia, the vast majority of us aren't medical professionals. As such, a source or two written in plain English is likely to be a lot more educational than a medical journal, which is why I added both. Quoting WP:MEDPRI:

If the same material could be supported by either a primary source or a secondary source, the secondary source should be cited. A primary source may be presented adjunctIvely to a secondary source.

And WP:MEDPOP:

One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source.

If you wouldn't mind, please don't strip articles of useful secondary sources. Cartographile (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popular press is of poor quality and not suitable to support medical content. You have not used any high quality secondary source for the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ignoring what I've written is going to help us build an encyclopedia. I'll excuse myself from this conversation now. Cartographile (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]