User talk:Jrsauer

Welcome!
Hello, Jrsauer, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you Ian. Jrsauer (talk) 05:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I saw some of your edits to Generalized anxiety disorder, and I want to say thanks for your work.
 * If you get stuck or need help, feel free to leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. There's a "New section" button at the top of the WikiProject Medicine talk page that you can use to start a new thread.  Good luck,  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I appreciate the feedback.  Jrsauer (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Generalized anxiety disorder, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Materialscientist,

Thank you for reaching out.

I'm not 100% clear what content seems to be at issue. As I reviewed the link you provided, it seemed that the highlighted text was in regard to a phrase or two under the "substance-induced" heading. However, when I visit the page, I don't see the content that I removed earlier today as being restored.

Nevertheless, if this was the content to which you are referring (i.e., the suggestion that "long-term use of benzodiazepines can worsen underlying anxiety" or the statement that a "reduction of benzodiazepines can lead to a diminishment of anxiety symptoms"), there are a number of issues one could take with these in-artful statements. Firstly, the article is about GAD - not general anxiety. Thus, at a minimum, one would hope for something of a qualified statement about the role of anxiety in view of benzodiazepine use in the context of GAD -- not just a phrase about benzodiazepine use and anxiety. Secondly, for the latter phrase, it isn't clear what a "reduction" means. Presumably, this would mean a tapering or a discontinuation or a withdrawal of a benzodiazepine medication for someone previously on a benzodiazepine medication. Thirdly, the previous draft failed in the most fundamental sense in that it failed to address how or why an anxiolytic (i.e., a benzodiazepine) would "worsen underlying anxiety." Thus, my point in removing this rather troubled phrasing was to remove an impediment for the reader that would serve more to confuse than to enlighten.

Today, I've been going back and forth over this "substance-induced" section for several reasons. The most notable is even the idea that GAD could be "substance-induced" is an unfounded concept. While anxiety (broadly) may be associated with substance use (depending on the substance and individual), and while anxiety is part of the experience of GAD, the heading "substance-induced" in an article about GAD might seem to suggest that GAD might itself be capable of occurring from a substance. As far as the literature is concerned, this would be a misunderstanding.

Finally, perhaps I should observe that in your merely having noted a content revision without an explanation does not mean that the content revision was without merit. In fact, as I read your note about reversing my revision, I fail to see any justification (suggested by you) why the original text was more deserving than the revised text. As I hope you have found in the explanation given above, the issues that one should have taken with the original phrasing should have been numerous and quite frankly obvious. Simply put, the original text was so profoundly flawed that a brief explanation would have been difficult. The original text, after all, was almost certainly a reason the GAD article has been poorly regarded (C-class). Jrsauer (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Materialscientist, the removed content was citing one source from 1998 and another from 2004. It may be out of date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you WhatamIdoing. Jrsauer (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)