User talk:JessRaymond

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, JessRaymond! Thank you for your contributions. I am Way2veers and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Way2veers 05:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Louis Severin

Hello, JessRaymond,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Louis Severin should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Severin .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Surfer43 (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JessRaymond, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi JessRaymond! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Veterans of Cairns District 1926.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Veterans of Cairns District 1926.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 03:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Was the edit on Sleepwalking deliberate? There was no edit summary. Apologies if I was too hasty and you were in the middle of something. MisterRandomized (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JessRaymond. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Coping planning (April 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kostas20142 was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Coping planning and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kostas20142 (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. 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) 04:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref

Were does this ref support this content "This approach addresses the needs of people experiencing acute distress by listening to the distressed person, collaboratively explore healthy and unhealthy coping strategies, provide education about the role of suicidal thoughts, helping the person strengthening their coping plan and connecting them with more intensive supports, as necessary. It overcomes the limitations of the widely used risk assessment approach that has been shown to have poor predictive validity for adverse outcomes.^[1]"

References

^ Franklin, J. C., Ribeiro, J. D., Fox, K. R., Bentley, K. H., Kleiman, E. M., Huang, X., . . . Nock, M. K. (2017). Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 187-232. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000084

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Stallman

Wondering your association with this researcher? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YOu have not addressed the concerns :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Coping planning concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Coping planning, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Coping planning

Hello, JessRaymond. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Coping planning".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDHOW

This tells you how to format refs. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

Not sure why all the images were removed or why the massive removal of content? Also lots of WP:MOS issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JessRaymond. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coping planning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stigma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Self-talk (March 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Internal monologue instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Self-talk and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Self-talk, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 01:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biopsychosocial model, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Resilience (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:

Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do. Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
Citation details are important:
- Be sure cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
- Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.
- Do not use URLs from your university library that have "proxy" in them: the rest of the world cannot see them.
- Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!\
Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reference spamming and conflict of interest

Pretty much all of your citations are related to Helen Stallman.

Please read WP:COI and WP:REFSPAM.

We love experts, but not when they just come here to promote their own work.

Please read the notice and reply. Please be aware that if you continue to be nonresponsive, you are likely to be indefinitely blocked. Talking with other editors is an essential part of working here.

Hello, JessRaymond. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Please reply here and disclose your connection with subjects about which you have edited and authors that you have cited. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Biopsychosocial model shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You seem to be here only to promote Helen Stallman, and not to build this encyclopedia. You also are refusing to communicate with your fellow editors. If you want to be in blocked, please explain your relationship with Stallman and commit to communicating with other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can be unblocked very easily by explicitly indicating that you will:

pay attention to messages you receive in the future
communicate with other users who leave messages
discuss matters on talk pages instead of edit warring.
promising to cite sources other than Helen Stallman.

Failure to promise any or all of those things, or to argue against the necessity or "fairness" of such promises, will likely result in your unblock request failing. Vague statements like "ok" will also likely be interpreted as not actually promising on the above. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JessRaymond (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is important that these pages contain the latest scientific evidence. All entries I have made have been cited with peer-reviewed journal articles. They provide the most up-to-date informationn for Wikipedia users

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

Your unblock request does not address your relationship with Helen Stallman and your specific reasons for citing this researcher so consistently. It also does not address your failure to communicate with other editors who express concerns about your edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JessRaymond. So happy that you have discovered your userpage. Would you please read the many, many postings that people have taken the time to post here? Would you please also respond to either Doc James' inquiry above, at User_talk:JessRaymond#Helen_Stallman, or my inquiry, at User_talk:JessRaymond#reference_spamming_and_conflict_of_interest, or to Ian's request here? These are issues that are fundamental to your presence here, and that we should establish. Once that is done, I can provide you some orientation to what we do in Wikipedia and why. But it will not be worth your time to request further unblocks until you get oriented to Wikipedia. There is a learning curve to working here, which you have not begun to really enter into yet. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) So show us some sources to why the information is correct. Per WP:V and WP:NOR, it must be verifiable, and just saying it here does not constitute verifiability. It may be seen therefore as original research, which is forbidden per Wikipedia policy WP:NOR and be removed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 11:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Franklin, J. C., Ribeiro, J. D., Fox, K. R., Bentley, K. H., Kleiman, E. M., Huang, X., . . . Nock, M. K. (2017). Risk factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 187-232. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000084

[1]