User talk:Jdbrook

This is Jdbrook's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

Puberty blocker

Someone else reverted your edits at Puberty blocker while I was about to do the same thing. Please [re]read WP:MEDRS, in particular, note that “ Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content”. Please also sign your posts; see WP:4TILDES. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(@Mathglot: I am confused, many of the the other references are primary sources, are they not? I've put some at the bottom.

More generally, the current Wikipedia information is incorrect. They are in fact not shown to help. Followup studies have not reproduced the positive effects the earlier paper quotes. They do not seem to give children "time" as almost all people who take them, in studies, then go on to cross sex hormones. The Turban paper has been criticized in the literature for many errors, here is one that shows that it does not support its claims: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01844-2 .

The Rafferty paper is full is misquotations of the literature, as it does not actually have support in the literature it quotes. It incorrectly "summarizes" the literature, as the literature it quotes does not say what the paper claims it says. Here is a published analysis of these misquotations: Cantor JM. Transgender and gender diverse children and adolescents: fact-checking of AAP policy. Journal of sex & marital therapy. 2020 May 18;46(4):307-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2019.1698481 Both of the above papers are cited authoritatively in the Wikipedia page but are wrong.

In addition, there is the comment on the page about the "perceived lack of research"- they are off label. Not FDA approved. There is thus insufficient research to justify their getting FDA approval, even though they are widely prescribed. It's not merely perceived that there is a lack of research. And the recent study that I put on and that was taken off showed that earlier work was not confirmed.

As it stands, the page is incorrect. Please advise? Thank you.

I'll learn how to sign the posts again. I forgot about that, sorry. I vaguely remember in the past making a suggestion and then having someone else put it on the page or not, this might be the best as I'm not up to speed. Would I do this by doing a "talk" with you or someone? I'm sorry, I just don't remember anymore. If you have a moment to remind me? Thanks either way!

Here are some other primary medical references on the page. I don't understand why these are ok and the ones I put in are not? Thanks!Jdbrook (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kreher NC, Pescovitz OH, Delameter P, Tiulpakov A, Hochberg Z (September 2006). "Treatment of familial male-limited precocious puberty with bicalutamide and anastrozole". The Journal of Pediatrics. 149 (3): 416–20. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2006.04.027. PMID 16939760.

Reiter EO, Mauras N, McCormick K, Kulshreshtha B, Amrhein J, De Luca F, O'Brien S, Armstrong J, Melezinkova H (October 2010). "Bicalutamide plus anastrozole for the treatment of gonadotropin-independent precocious puberty in boys with testotoxicosis: a phase II, open-label pilot study (BATT)". Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism. 23 (10): 999–1009. doi:10.1515/jpem.2010.161. PMID 21158211. S2CID 110630.

Staphorsius, Annemieke S.; Kreukels, Baudewijntje P.C.; Cohen-Kettenis, Peggy T.; Veltman, Dick J.; Burke, Sarah M.; Schagen, Sebastian E.E.; Wouters, Femke M.; Delemarre-van de Waal, Henriëtte A.; Bakker, Julie (June 2015). "Puberty suppression and executive functioning: An fMRI-study in adolescents with gender dysphoria". Psychoneuroendocrinology. 56: 190–199. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.03.007. PMID 25837854. S2CID 16826643. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdbrook (talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment,

More generally, the current Wikipedia information is incorrect. They are in fact not shown to help. Followup studies have not reproduced the positive effects the earlier paper quotes

you've identified one of the reasons why WP:PRIMARY sources are strongly discouraged by WP:MEDRS. You are right to point out the other WP:PRIMARY sources, but the fact that they are there doesn't excuse adding even more of them; they should be removed, as well; including all the content that precedes them that purports to rely on them as a source. I don't get to this article all that frequently, so if you're working on it now, feel free to do so yourself if you like. If you do remove the other primary sources and associated content, please mention "WP:PRIMARY" and/or "not WP:MEDRS-compliant" in the edit summary; the reason for this is, that removing sourced material without explanation is discouraged and other editors acting too hastily may simply revert you if you leave no explanation; furthermore, the software automatically tags such edits with "References removed" in the history and other editors can see those tags, so remembering to mention PRIMARY and MEDRS in your edit summary will help explain why you are removing that content, including the references, so that other editors won't reflexively just revert your edit. I'll eventually get around to removing these references and material myself if someone doesn't beat me to it, but as I mentioned, it's not my priority just now.

Please do have a look through WP:MEDRS and follow the links. Based on the message you left on my talk page, it sounds like you might have already started to do that. You can also ask questions at the WikiProject dedicated to discussing articles related to medical topics; their Talk page is here, so feel free to ask questions there as well if there's anything at WP:MEDRS that isn't clear, or if you just have a specific question about Puberty blocker or anything else.

One other thing: I added a signature for you on your last comment above. Please read WP:THREAD and start using a signature to mark all your comments; this is done by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of every comment. That link also explains WIkipedia conventions about indentation, which helps make it clear when one comment ends and another begins, as well as who is responding to whom. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Thank you, shall do! Coming up to speed, but not there yet, thank you for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdbrook (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got notifications down cold with your use of {{ping}}, so congrats for that! Now, before you go any further at the article, you should *really* learn how to sign your messages using four tildes (~~~~) at the end, and proper indentation at the beginning of your message (see WP:THREAD). Please reply to this message, using {{ping}} again (or, {{reply}}, if you wish), proper indentation, and signature at the end. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Ok, hope this works! I did what you said about {{ping}}, I appreciate the help. Things are going nuts over here so I might be quiet as I learn some more then try again. :). Next up is learning about indentation and then sifting through references to find the kind that are appropriate. Thank you for your time and help! Jdbrook (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, it worked! You're on your way... Mathglot (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Thank you! Jdbrook (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Hi, sorry to bother you again. I just learned that I sign these "talk" messages but not the edits. I'm really sorry about this. Is there a way to get rid of the ~~~~ in an edit summary? Or should I just do it right the next time? It seems that if I edit while logged in, perhaps there is nothing else needed as far as signing the actual edit, is that correct? It's just these talk pages where I should sign? Sorry to be so dense. If you are too busy, I'll keep trying and bother someone else if I can't figure it out. Sorry about getting confused and thanks again for the help!Jdbrook (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem; just do it right the next time. The mediawiki software won't alter the ~~~~ in the edit summary, and anyone who sees it will understand that you're just learning the ropes. It's in no way damaging or problematic, so there's no need to apologize, but I appreciate the comment anyway, as it shows you are here for the right reasons (trying to improve the encyclopedia). You can shrug it off, and go on your merry way. There's a lot of stuff here to learn, and one of the main ways is by making mistakes, and getting corrected. If you want to learn actively on your own, there are various tutorials available; see the links in your welcome message. Otherwise, you can start at "the top", which is pretty much the Five Pillars, and drill down from there. As far as responding on Talk pages or edit summaries, see WP:TALK, WP:THREAD, and WP:ES. Thanks for asking, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot:Thanks a lot, this is great, really helpful! Jdbrook (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome! Btw, if the indenting gets to far out to the right, you can just bring it back flush left again. If you want to make it clear that you are responding to the person above, indented umpteen levels in, you can use this handy gadget; otherwise, just leave it flush left, maybe use the {{reply}} template, and it will be clear. Mathglot(talk) 01:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Aha! Thank you yet again! Jdbrook (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Jdbrook! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot:Oh this is awesome! Thank you! I appreciate the help and am glad to have these leads, thank you for your time and the cookies! :) Jdbrook (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Puberty blocker redux

Hi Jdbrook, I saw you trying to improve a previous edit at Puberty blocker by another editor who added some material to the article along with a new reference. It looks like you tried to improve it by doing some rewording in this edit. I've undone the other editor's addition and removed the reference, because it is a WP:PRIMARY source, which also undid your attempts at improvement.

I appreciate your trying to improve the wording, but it's important to remember that the PRIMARY source should not have been added in the first place (see #Puberty blocker above), so improving wording based on that source, is not an improvement to the article because it all has to come out anyway. I realize you didn't add the material originally, but just be aware that trying to fix wording in a case like that, is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; it's doomed and a waste of time. It actually made things a bit worse for me, in that had you left it alone, I would have been able to just click the little 'Undo' link on the other editor's edit, and it would have removed the bad source and the text, and also pre-written the Edit summary "Undo" comment for me. But since you changed the wording, the 'Undo' link didn't work for me after that, and I had to undo it manually, which is a bit of a pain.

So, next time you're tempted to improve the wording based on a newly added source, ask yourself if that source even belongs there at all. If yes, fine, go for it. If not, just hit 'Undo' (if you still can) to get rid of it, along with an explanation of why you think that source is not admissible. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You have some discussions on this page that are ancient history; you could just delete them, but a better alternative is to archive them. Would you like me to show you how to do that, or do it for you? I would propose archiving the first two sections, as they are five years old. Mathglot (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Thank you very much! Sorry for the trouble with that source, still on the learning curve here. If you have a moment to explain, I'm puzzled why the NICE evidence review is primary, which is why I didn't remove it. It is an evidence review, commissioned by the UK National Health services and by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. [1] There's context at [2].

I had no idea about the archive option, indeed it's a bit weird to have the older stuff on there. I hope not to find out a new way to do it wrong. Thanks for the help! Jdbrook talk 02:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took only a fairly brief look before concluding it was PRIMARY; maybe I went too fast and got it wrong. If you are sure it is a lit. review or survey, then just revert my change and put it back in, with an explanation in the edit summary. I trust you. Mathglot (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Hi, thank you very much for explaining what your concerns were. My impression is that it was authoritative because of its origins, as well as secondary. I'll check again and put it back in if that holds, with the explanation as you advise. I really appreciate all your help in learning how to do this. Thanks! Jdbrook talk 21:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a lot of time for this now, but please check with Crossroads if you have any questions, who also spotted this and commented at Talk. Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, shall do! Thanks again. Jdbrook talk 21:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

A simple, manual way is to create User talk:Jdbrook/Archive 1, add {{tan}} to the page, set the edit summary to something like, 'Creating Archive_1', and hit Publish. Then, come back here in a different tab, edit this page, select/cut the first two conversations, switch to Archive_1 in another tab, edit that page, paste the selection, set another edit summary ('Adding 2 conversations to archive'), and hit Publish. View the page, to make sure your 2 conversations are in there. If so, switch back to the this page again (where you already cut the conversations, but haven't saved yet), and hit Publish. View this page, and those 2 conversations should be gone here. You're done! Mathglot (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you! I tried, hopefully it worked! I appreciate the help! Jdbrook talk 21:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It worked, but it's conventional to start with /Archive_1, not zero. I don't think this is forbidden, but it won't play nice with automatic search features. I added a "talk header" to the top of this page, which would automatically "see" your page if named "Archive_1", and permit you (or anyone) to search for things in your archives. If you wish to, just move (i.e., "rename") the page to "User talk:Jdbrook/Archive 1", and the Talk header will automatically provide a link to it, and make it searchable. Let me know if you have any issues in the move. Mathglot (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Thank you for pointing that out and explaining how to fix it, I think it is ok now! Jdbrook talk 22:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Gender dysphoria

Looking over your edits to the gender dysphoria article, it seems that they all have a common theme: to introduce fear, uncertainty, and doubt about any medical treatments for GD. Is there some reason that you are focusing on that specifically? Kaldari (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Kaldari:, can you specify which edit, and what specific issue you are alluding to? Jdbrook is only recently coming on board with basics of referencing wrt PRIMARY vs SECONDARY (see conversations above and at Talk GD), and with MEDRS requirements. Since the conversation above where they seem to be on board with it as of April 3, they have made only four edits to the GD article, and only after dozens of interactions at the Talk page with multiple editors, so there's no lack of prior discussion involved in their edits. Are you referring to one of the four edits post-April 3? Mathglot (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I took a second look, and I could have said pretty much exactly what you did above; only, not for this editor, but for another contributor to the page. Is it possible you posted at the wrong UTP? Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you're referring to KoenigHall. Both KoenigHall and Jdbrook seem to be fixated on discrediting medical treatments for GD. The main difference is that Jdbrook discusses the edits (which is appreciated), while KoenigHall doesn't. Kaldari (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your help. My intention was to add information that appeared to be missing, in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. Please advise if there is mistaken information that I should correct? Thanks. Jdbrook talk 17:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jdbrook, Well, I had a look at post-April 3 edits, and nothing jumps out at me. Edits before that, I consider part of your refs+medrs learning curve, and there's been a lot of churn on the article before that time, so if there were problems, I imagine they've been corrected through the normal editing process. @Kaldari:, that's the second time you've used language that sounds to me either like an attribution of lack of good faith, or of biased editing, without a diff or any detail to back it up. Can you be more specific, if you have information on either of those? Vague aspersions on this editor's TP are not helpful to anybody. Mathglot (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaldari: @Mathglot: Thank you both. I am still on the learning curve and the literature in this topic is heterogeneous and not always self-consistent. Even WP secondaries, which should be trusted, quote sources for things they don't say or quote evidence from a source but contradict what the source itself concludes from that evidence; early sources say something is established, later sources point out errors, omissions or lack of sufficient rigor; early sources make a careful and limited claim, later sources drop the qualifiers and broaden the claims. It seems that most in the field agree at least that more research is needed.

I have tried to avoid mistakes by going first to the talk page, but would want to correct any I have inadvertently included, of course. Thanks for the help. Jdbrook talk 10:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications, reply, ping, and all that

Jdbrook, when anybody writes to you on this page, you get a little alert, to let you know the page has been updated (unless you've turned that off in your Preferences). However, on *this* page, nobody else gets such alerts, only you do. That means, for example, that after your 17:53, 17 April response in the section above, nobody was alerted to your response. You can fix that by using template {{reply}} (alias: 're'). Full details at Help:Notifications. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Thank you, in hindsight I should have realized notifying others was needed (I appreciate you putting it in) and done ping or reply above. Thank you for this info/advice. Jdbrook talk 23:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notice about editing gender-related articles

Jdbrook, This is a standard notice about editing gender-related articles. It isn't about you or your editing; everybody that edits gender-related articles gets one of these sooner or later. Basically, the notice informs you that beyond all the regular rules around here, there is a more stringent set of rules governing the behavior of editors who edit in certain controversial topic areas, like gender, that you need to know about. Please read it, and follow the links. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Mathglot (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Thank you and thank you for the explanation, very good to know. Shall do. Jdbrook talk 03:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice - renewal

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]