User talk:Jjcubs92

This user is a student editor in UCSF_School_of_Medicine/WikiMed_Fall_2018_UCSF_SOM_(Fall_2018) .

Jjcubs92, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jjcubs92! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Jjcubs92, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 00:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SRS edits

Hi, Jjcubs92, and welcome to Wikipedia! This message is to let you know that I removed three sections you added to Sexual reassignment surgery because you failed to include a reference. I’m sure your training modules included WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS. I plan to remove more of the unsourced content, but I’m mobile and won’t get to it right away which gives you a chance to go back and source them first.

As a second matter: some of your changes, including those three sections duplicate material at Sex reassignment surgery (male-to-female) or Sex reassignment surgery (female-to-male), so in those cases there’s no point adding it back to your article, except insofar as it follows summary style. If your content includes new material not already at the two sub-articles, it would be worthwhile adding it to those two articles, with sources. Adding User:Ian (Wiki Ed). Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After adding unsourced material and having it reverted by another editor asking for a source, you then went in and added it back in this edit still without a source. In addition, I question whether you should be working on the lead of an article on a controversial tooic without discussing it first. You stated your intention to do so in the Talk page of the article, that’s the right thing to do. But then you went ahead and made your changes to the lead anyway, without discussing it first. Please discuss any changes to the lead before you make them. It wouldn’t hurt to discuss plans to add multiple sections to the article either. Mathglot (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important point, Jjcubs92 - this is a controversial topic, and controversial topics are spaces where discussion is especially important. I strongly recommend that you discuss changes to the lead on the talk page, and get agreement from your fellow editors. Pinging MannyMG85, since they're also working on this article. When you run into any sort of resistance on an article, always stop and discuss. Leaving Mathglot's posts to your talk page without reply isn't cool. Thanks. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for leaving the posts to my talk page without reply, but frankly, I hadn't come back to wikipedia yet. I thought I made the changes incorrectly because it immediately was removed from the page, which is why I replaced it. The lead hadn't been sourced originally, so I didn't remove any sources, just slightly edited the lead to make it more streamlined, so that not only surgery on genetalia was referred to, because that is a small part of these surgeries. I wasn't adding new material. For your second comment for the unsourced material, I hadn't sourced it yet, it was removed immediately before I had a chance to add sources. I was going to add sources. Let me know if it was out of line, and I can add to the talk page before making real time changes. Jjcubs92 (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apology not required, I can see that your goal is to improve the article and if you run afoul of one or another of the umpty-zillion rules as a new editor it’s not surprising.

The lead is supposed to briefly define the topic and summarize the body of the article, not introduce new material. For that reason, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to make edits to it, while you’re still thinking of making changes to the body. For the same reason (being a summary) the lead generally does not need to have references, because if it’s a summary of the body, and if the body is referenced the way it’s supposed to be, then there should be nothing in the lead that isn’t already referenced by something more detailed about the same topic in the body. That said, there’s no rule saying you can’t add references to the lead, you just don’t usually have to.

As far as adding material to the body, and then adding sources later, there’s no policy against that, but it’s subject to real life getting in the way and the sources never getting added in the end, so personally I find that methodology suboptimal. If you do decide to go with that method, be aware that someone could come along and perfectly in line with policy (WP:V) could remove any uncited assertions. Any type of footnote is fine, but using the citation templates like {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} helps you structure a reference properly, so I recommend using those.

Please also see WP:THREAD. Mathglot (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]