User talk:JCJC777

Thank you for your contributions! Jim1138 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the caffeine article. If you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This tool can save you a lot of work and ensure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manner. Also most of the citation that you supplied were to primary sources. Per WP:MEDRS, I have removed these while retaining the secondary sources that you have added. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please take the time to fill out references in a template. By being lazy, you force other editors to finish your work. Another easy-to-use tool is Citer here. --Zefr (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You are a serial offender of being lazy, as on your reference edits without using Citer at Kefir. This is a nuisance and bad conduct. Slow down and make an effort to be complete by using Citer to fill out source information! --Zefr (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi JCJC777! As you probably have noticed, I removed your references to other Wikipedia articles. Please read: Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. It says "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." Thank you! Lova Falk talk 14:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

is a useful site for references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Good job with the sources! Lova Falk talk 09:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Lova thanks for your help. JCJC777

Hello and thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia. I have a tip. If you're going to start a prevention section effectively just to say one is missing, consider creating a blank section and using {{empty section}}. It looks like this:

This section is empty. You can help by adding to it.

Your current wording of "prevention is getting more attention" or whatever sounds a bit vague and isn't being supported by a reliable medical source specific to the disease/disorder. I hope this helps. Thanks again for your interest. Biosthmors (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm..... see here. Please don't do silly things like that again. =) Is there something I could say to help you understand how to edit here? Biosthmors (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And don't worry too much, I do silly things myself around here from time to time too! Biosthmors (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys thanks for your help. I am trying to refer sufferers of schizophrenia etc to the general mental disorder prevention section - any suggestions? P.s. Is there an issue with quoting the recent Schizophrenia Commission? Yours in ignorance and hopefulness (JCJC777 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

There might not be! My ignorance has thus been proclaimed. =) Add a quote to the existing section? Then we'll see if we like it! Biosthmors (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm also not sure on the wisdom of linking readers of the prevention of schizophrenia section over to mental disorders prevention section. If reliable sources state something important about schizophrenia prevention, can't we just include those facts as prose and not bother with the link? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. The problem is that diagnosis terms for mental health are actually vague and much argued over. I wanted to give sufferers thus labelled an idea of the bigger mental health prevention picture. Let me have a think. Thanks again (JCJC777 (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

Hi James I saw you reversed my edit on Schizophrenia prevention/early intervention - please could you explain your thinking? Isn't it right and helpful to readers to separate (a) content on real prevention from (b) content on early intervention once the disorder is already partly visible? Thanks and best wishes (JCJC777 (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC))

Sure this text does not deal with prevention itself but discusses research. "The 2012 UK Schizophrenia Commission called for more prevention research; " We should also present the conclusions first. Thus disagree with the reordering. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database
• Please format references properly. It helps out a lot.

Sorry, I am just so short of time; I figure people read Wiki on the internet; they can easily click through to read reference details themselves; Wiki could save contributors so much time by saying this is fine. (JCJC777 (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC))

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are required for most major topics per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been adding this statement unrefenced "Focus is increasing on prevention of mental disorders" I have found a secondary source that supports it for anxiety disorders.

• Bienvenu, OJ (2007 Dec). "Prevention of anxiety disorders". International review of psychiatry (Abingdon, England). 19 (6): 647–54. PMID 18092242. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks James, very helpful. Thanks again for all your help. We're helping people here, giving them signposts to find hope and ways forward, and helping to reduce future human suffering (JCJC777 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC))

Could you please properly format your references? There is a tool in the top of the edit book where all you need to enter is the PMID and it will fill in the rest.

Also please only use secondary sources. Case studies are not sufficient. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi James thanks, am pressed now but will try to do so. Am aware I am prehistoric in terms of sophistication. Will look up that tool. Thanks (JCJC777 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC))

We have instructions here Wikipedia:MEDHOW It is supper easy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Using the cite template. There is a tool in the edit box and explanations on how to use it here WP:MEDHOW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi JCJC777, I reverted your recent addition to the rugby union article. Please don't take offence as it is an intertesting stat, but it is probably better appearing in the 'History of rugby union' article under a section based on the development of the game. Also the fact is a bit trivial for the article, as we could probably add a 101 interesting facts about players over the years but they would just be that, interesting facts, it needs a narrative. Thirdly the statement isn't true as it is taken from an analysis of only the England players, so we could only state that England players have become larger, not rugby players. Fourth, Western people have all become taller and heavier since the 1960s, so that needs to be factored into the writer's analyis too, which it isn't. Hope that explains my reasoning. Cheers, FruitMonkey (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cognitive Emotional Behaviour Therapy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mindfulness meditation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not copy and paste sentences but rather paraphrase content per this edit here Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand why you do not format references similar to the rest of the text? I have gone and done so yet you revert my changes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Expect as much :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted twice your addition to the article. Please do not re-add it. The investigation on modafinil is interesting but too preliminary and specific to mention it in the main article, since it is only primary preliminary research. Moreover off-label and alternative are not the same, since in off-label it is usually a phsysician who recommends the use of a product based on his experience and not so much on evidence. In this sense the approapiate place for this kind of research would be the "associated symptoms" in the treatment section, and to include it there we would need a secondary source in a peer-reviewed journal (and even then we would need to discuss if it is better to include it here or in "treatment of multiple sclerosis" article, where I have included a summarized version of your edit.)

Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Will Carling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Lions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I left you a comment there about meta-planning. Regards, – SJ + 20:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I undid your edit to Mental disorder as you did not add a reference. Significant content must be verifiable. Please add reliable sources or reliable medical sources in the case of medical content. Also, please be aware of English variants and maintain the variant throughout the article. If the article uses British English, Australian English, American English, etc., please maintain that. Quotes are an exception. You used "programmes" where there is "programs" in the article. Please see wp:engvar for exceptions and resolutions to issues. You can undo my undo (via View history), but please add a reference before you save. References should / must be added when you add your significant content. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them on my talk page. Thank you and welcome to Wikipedia! Jim1138 (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You did add a link! Which I did not check. My apology. I assumed that it was a link such as you might link some somewhat irrelevant item. 20 links are quite a few. Are there any that specificlly discuss cash transfer programmes for mental disorders?

I see that "programme" and "program" are used interchangeably. That probably should be cleaned up- maybe in the future... BTW: you did duplicate "Some countries run conditional cash transfer welfare programmes...". I removed the second one. Again, my apology. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think none of the refs apply to mental health programs; shall I take them all out? JCJC777

Twenty refs for one sentence is probably a bit much... Given the link, (my bad) all could be removed. Do you know of any places that use conditional cash transfers for mental health? I know a few people that could use such a program. Being CEOs and upper management, maybe conditional stock options... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Psychodynamic psychotherapy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in the British Journal of Psychiatry,<ref>http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/200/5/429.1.long​ (​Methodological discrepancies in the update of a meta-analysis.​ Kliem S, Beller J, Kroeger C.​ Br

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Colwyn Trevarthen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Attachment

Video interaction guidance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Attachment

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Ran Gavrieli requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TheLongTone (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeremy Clarkson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Top Gear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Were you going to provide a ref for "Many causes of psychosis are also causes of schizophrenia."? Lots of drugs cause acute psychosis but do not really cause schizophrenia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The validity of masterstrack.com is currently being questioned Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#masterstrack.com. An editor is accusing it of being an unreliable source. You have used masterstrack.com as a reference in your editing. I would like to invite your comment. Trackinfo (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The article Lauren Parsekian has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gloucester Rugby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Humphreys. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You must state in the edit summary which page you took it from. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sam Altman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Y Combinator. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Bourne Identity (2002 film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doniago, I know with your brilliance and your love for making Wiki maximally rich, that you'll find the ref. Go well

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Research on meditation. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Research on meditation into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Research on mindfulness a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alex I don't have the resources to do this; but I know you love wiki, and grasp the point that the current 'research in meditation' page has been hijacked by some mindfulness 'cuckoos in the nest'. Go well, JCJC777

At Research on meditation you added a lot of primary sources. Please see WP:MEDRS for sourcing guidelines for biomedical information. Also be aware that the Frontiers journals are regarded as generally unreliable and so should be avoided. When adding citations please abide by the guidance at WP:CITEMED so as not to create a lot of work for other editors. In general the Research on meditation article is very bad, and so improvement would be good - but please don't make it even worse! Alexbrn (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Alex JCJC777

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Disability-adjusted life year, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medical Research Council. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quality-adjusted life year, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medical Research Council. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

When you add references to Wikipedia, you would you please take the time to format them? Please see Wikipedia:Bare URLs; they are a bad thing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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. 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. Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. I'm not being difficult; my theory is (1) that readers are quite happy with a bare URL for a reference; they are online and can easily click through to the URL and check it out for themselves, (i.e. I think wiki rules are wrong here) and (2) some wiki editors like converting bare URLs into 'correct' wiki format; they enjoy that tidying-up work. And I'm short of time and energy and bandwidth. But if you want to deprive readers of this content because you can't bear a bare URL, so be it. All best, JCJC777

There are two issues. I've removed content you've added b/c the source is not OK per WP:MEDRS. Please become familiar with it - if you don't understand it, please ask.

The other issue is bareURLs - I would not remove content on that basis alone. Please actually read WP:BAREURL. it is not a matter of being anal - bareURLs actually suck -and they do suck - for many reasons. Are you aware of the citation-creating tool in the edit window? if you enter the PMID it creates a full citation in seconds. Seconds. Jytdog (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog - ok, have read the bareURL piece; understand point about rotting refs. however my view still that surely that formatting bareURLs as refs can be automated by wiki. or done by another human ( surely we can split up the roles here; some adding raw content (me), some enjoying the formatting and correct-ifying of that raw content. we don't need one person to be able to do everything. ) danger of current system is that people like me just won't bother contributing new content (too hard)

"done by another human"... that is just .. meh. nobody here is your mom. really - there is a tool in the edit window - look up and you will see on the right where it says "cite". click it and new bar will appear and over on the left and there is a pulldown - select "cite journal", enter the PMID, click the little magnifying glass, and all the fields will autofill. easy peasy. I just want to be clear - i am not one of these stickers for reference citation style. I don't care how it is done - at all. but there should be the complete citation (author, publication, and especially date) so people can know if the ref is recent or old and from a decent source so they can look at that information and go find it whether they are on a computer or not. a bareurl requires a person to click it to learn the date and other info. And for biomedical journals, the PMID is essential - we can tell from the pubmed entry at a glance if it is a medrs source or not. Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

For some people at some times, it is a truly marginal call as to whether they bother to add content to wiki or not. Surely we should make it as easy and good a user experience as possible to do so - so we get the best, richest content in wiki. JCJC777

• the ref you added here is not even close to a MEDRS source. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Why is there anything at all is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why is there anything at all until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tarl N. (discuss) 11:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tarl. This seems a worthwhile and important topic, but aware many changes may be needed. Best wishes, JCJC777

By the way, as for being semi-retired, I did seriously reduce my activity level, but it has crept back up. I'm trying to keep my watchlist under 1000 pages. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. 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) 17:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Specifically blogs are not suitable generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

hi uk born male. forget about the docjames stuff argh i almost stopped editing medical stuff. are you from the north ? --Wuerzele (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello JCJC777,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Luke Timmerman for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Obesity in the Pacific, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMI (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) 09:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JCJC777,

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

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,

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prevention of mental disorders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced opinion to the article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding 'howto' sources to the article; see WP:NOTHOWTO. Meditation blogs are not WP:SECONDARY sources. Also, please put your sources in a template, so other editors don't have to clean up your work. You can review this at WP:REFB and WP:CIT. --Zefr (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Since it is about an issue within the Meditation article, I might as well ask here, JCJC777: what references are you trying to invoke with <ref name="Van_Dam_2018"/><ref name=Stetka2017/>, which you added in this edit on 8 June 2018? Since that edit, both citations have remained broken in the article. Did you forget to add the sources? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

apologies, copied the ref from the "research on meditation" article; did not realise it did not work here . JCJC777 (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your recent additions, the parts taken from The Guardian is from a book review, which is an opinion column. The Financial Times piece also seems to be an opinion/analysis piece. As per WP:NEWSORG Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Marteau (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Also, having a "Philosophy" section which just mentions a subset of his thinking such as "life is suffering" and "happiness is a stupid goal" would give undue weight to those ideas, and would imply that that's all he brings to the table, so to speak. If a new "Philosophy" section were to be added, I'd think it should have more than just that, and should have a more complete coverage. Marteau (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Meditation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Typology

World Happiness Report (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Columbia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Emotion does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thank for your work on Emotion. Your many edits appear to be improving the article, but it would be much easier for other editors to review what you are doing if you would leave an edit summary after each edit. — Anita5192 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your thoughtful edits on Coffee. Two points: 1) This edit impresses as too much synthesis and cherry-picking of sources, so I removed it, and 2) you provided some formatting of sources, but not all, requiring substantial work to properly use templates for reference details. Please slow down and apply full reference information. This tool can help. Good luck. Reply here on your page if you wish to discuss. --Zefr (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In your recent edits, you added bare URLs as references, which are not good because they provide no citation information and are subject to link rot. I notice that others have already mentioned this issue here on your talk page (e.g., § Bare URLs). If, as it appears, you refuse to enter proper citation information and insist on inserting bare URLs, you should at least insert {{Cleanup bare URLs}} at the top of any article in which you insert bare URLs, so that other editors will be notified and will clean up the bare URLs with reFill, a semi-automated tool. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You should add more information about Atatürk's lifestyle. Under the title "lifestyle", there is only information about his drinking. It offers a tunnel vision on Atatürk. - Ullierlich (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

thanks. fair criticism. hopefully others will add more content here. JCJC777

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Isa Guha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UCL (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) 14:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Explains how to format your references. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. 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.

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
2. Then click on "templates",
3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
4. If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

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) 08:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello JCJC777,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged What Works Centre for Wellbeing for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Your added content to Emma Thompson was fine, the problem was the references which were a mess. None had titles, dates, publisher etc. And using a film as a reference was also an issue. For a good article the references would need to be cleaned up before adding that material. Cheers. Niche Arts (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Charles E. Gordon Frazer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/11408/lot/23/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

thanks, you're right, my apologies, (I was hoping others might build out the content) JCJC777 (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello JCJC777, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi - sorry for the 'welcome to Wikipedia' part of that message - I can see that you've been around a while, but I couldn't see any copyvio notices on this page so thought I'd give you the 'beginner's guide' rather than a harsher warning. You can't copy stuff off other websites - you can use them as sources, but the content at the Charles E. Gordon Frazer article was a direct copy/paste from a website, which is not OK. Let me know if you have any questions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

thanks, you're right, my apologies, (I was hoping others might build out the content) JCJC777 (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit also copied directly from the source. It's quite simple - never copy and paste. SmartSE (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Editor,
Thank you for your recent edits about handedness and the related pages. Wikipedia has fairly recently implemented the 'visual editing' feature which you can toggle from the 'source editing' using a button to the left of the 'Publish changes' blue button. This mode allows you to use the 'cite' tool on the same bar as the 'Publish changes'. It just says 'cite' with a picture of quotation marks. If you click this, it will open the window depending on where you're currently typing and offer 'Automatic', 'Manual', and 'Re-use' options. If you stick with manual, you can simply insert the link to your reference, such as "https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-016-0625-8" and it will automatically created a nicely formatted reference where you just have to press the blue 'insert' button and voila. Hope this helps! Nonetheless, the corpus callosum reference was a great read and a fanstastic contribution. Best wishes, Revanchist317 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Mental illness prevention (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mcampany (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Snow (cricketer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andy Roberts.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Your addition to World Food Programme has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.S Philbrick(Talk) 12:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now reverted three similar additions from you to Existential risk from artificial general intelligence and Artificial general intelligence. The notion of an AI independently setting its own goals needs clear discussion and real support from sources, which you have not been providing. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Weyer. This topic seems a major gap in wiki discussion of AI currently. I was just hoping to stimulate a discussion and some authors to contribute good sources. I'll give up. Best JCJC777 (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jac Morgan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamish Watson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited This Guy's in Love with You, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danny Williams.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Happiness you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Larry Hockett -- Larry Hockett (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The article Happiness you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Happiness for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Larry Hockett -- Larry Hockett (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Cahill (businessman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BTR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Taliban page websites seems broken, also if kandahar can be added as capital or at least "no central capital"; as now control multiple cities.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Nine Perfect Strangers (miniseries), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

What did you add? It can easily be added back, but I wasn't sure of its encyclopaedic value. If you want to be a martyr, that's fine, but I have no vested interest in whether you contribute here or not. – PeeJay 18:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Renat 18:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

For help on edit summaries, please see the November 2018 post.—Anita5192 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (JCJC777, and Multiple sclerosis, and long-term concerns unheeded) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Multiple sclerosis) for persistent disruptive editing.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JCJC777 (and Ritchie333). I appreciate the willingness to continue contributing that you expressed at the ANI thread, and I responded there.. As you know, the MS article is dated, and we do need all the good medical editors we can get. Seeing your request to Ritchie333 to lift your ban partial block, my recommendation is that you start at lower-pageview articles and have some suggestions for going forward. I hope you find this info helpful.

1. The most crucial is that you learn to paraphrase content in your own words, while also avoiding overquoting. Helpful reading is at WP:PARAPHRASE and at this Signpost oped.
2. Tne next most important step is to thoroughly read and digest WP:MEDRS to understand the distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. We can’t use websites created by medical advocates to source most medical content, for example. This Signpost article is a bit dated, but gives a good overview. If you look at this source which you recently used, you will see that it says “Comparative study” above the title of the article. That is a primary source, and a very old one, so not really usable for anything. If that study was validated, important, and worth mentioning, it would be mentioned in a secondary review. You can contrast that with this article, where you see the words “Review” above the article title.
3. There is a very handy template in use at most (but not all) medical article talk pages that will help you make sure you are only using good WP:MEDRS sources, and avoiding primary sources. As an example, if you go to Talk:Multiple sclerosis, you will see that the second template on that page starts with Ideal sources for Wikipedia’s health content, and is followed by links that will lead you to free review articles from the past five years. (This is not to say that those are the only sources you can use, or that there are not other ways to find sources, but if you start out by sticking to those, you can be certain you will not be using primary or inferior sources like advocacy websites.) If you are editing an article that does not have that template on its talk page, you can easily add it by placing {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} at the top of the article talk page. (For example, I see that Talk:Alcoholic polyneuropathy already has one.)
4. Another thing is to learn how to set your filters on PubMed so that you will only access secondary reviews, and avoid case studies and primary sources. When you are accessing PubMed, scrolling down the left-hand side of the page, you will see where you can place checkmarks to restrict your search to meta-analysis, reviews and systematic reviews, and further down the page, you can restrict further to within the last five years (see WP:MEDDATE), or if that fails to produce anything, the last ten years.
5. Next, once you have restricted your sources to secondary reviews, if you have found those on Pubmed, you can take the PMID (PubMed ID) and plug it in to this tool, and get a full citation.
   So let’s use https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30467601/ (a secondary review and meta-analysis) as an example:

   That article is PMID 30467601

   You access https://citation-template-filling.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi and type in 30467601

   The citation filling template returns {{cite journal |vauthors=Julian T, Glascow N, Syeed R, Zis P |title=Alcohol-related peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis |journal=J Neurol |volume=266 |issue=12 |pages=2907–2919 |date=December 2019 |pmid=30467601 |pmc=6851213 |doi=10.1007/s00415-018-9123-1 |url=}}

   You just edit-copy, edit-paste that citation between the ref tags to get a fully formatted citation to a high quality source: Julian T, Glascow N, Syeed R, Zis P (December 2019). "Alcohol-related peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis". J Neurol. 266 (12): 2907–2919. doi:10.1007/s00415-018-9123-1. PMC 6851213. PMID 30467601.

I know this is a lengthy start, but if you can focus on building these specific skills, you are much more likely to find that your edits will stick. Good luck going forward, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

thanks SandyGeorgia, appreciate you taking the time , and for the clarity of your guidance. ,JCJC777 (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You’re welcome. I threaded your response above by adding one colon before it. Try to remember also to thread your responses on talk pages, and always to sign them (have a look here for a thorough explanation). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I think SandyGeorgia has given good advice here, but just for the record, you aren't banned from Multiple sclerosis, you're simply blocked, which means I (or any other administrator) can remove the block once we're satisfied there's not going to be any more disruption. Hopefully once you've digested the points above, we'll be in a position to do that. After all, you're not blocked from any other article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you please explain this edit? You reverted the article to the 25 July 2020 version without a reasonable explanation. --Muhandes (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

JCJC777, like the poster above, I have noticed that most of your edits today are reverting bare URL sources, with an edit summary of "poorly formatted references". I am glad to see that you apologized, but wanted to provide further information.

Poorly formatted references, in and of itself, is not a reason for reverting them. Some source is better than no source. (In the case of your medical edits, they were generally reverted because they were primary sources--not because they were bare URLs.) Many new editors do not know how to format citations, while an editor such as yourself who has been editing for almost ten years is assumed to have learned. Please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources.

This edit at Multiple sclerosis signs and symptoms, on the other hand, is a bigger problem, which gives me concern that you have not taken on board the commentary above. PMID 30692862 is a 2018 (recent) review, meaning that it complies with WP:MEDRS. PMID 32139797 is a primary study. You can tell that because not only is it not flagged as a review (as I explained to you above), but also because just by reading the abstract, you can see that it is a study as opposed to a secondary review of other studies. The abstract itself discusses that clearly. And yet, in that edit, you removed information cited to 30692862 ("in one 2018 review 75–87% of patients with MS reported fatigue, and two-thirds of these patients indicated fatigue as one of the worst three common symptoms they experienced") which was clearly indicated as a review, and replaced it with information cited to 32139797, the primary study ("Analysis of different dimensions of fatigue (physical, cognitive, and psychosocial) has found that MS fatigue is fairly consistent across dimensions.") SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops, apologies for sending the message above before I finished it. On the positive side, I am encouraged to see that you did properly format the citation! Could you please explain, here on your talk page (which I am following) if you are still confused about how to distinguish between primary and secondary sources, and why you removed a review to replace it with information from a primary study? I also suggest reverting that edit, as the text you removed was correctly cited text. @Ritchie333 and Dennis Brown: in case they have anything to add. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• • • Looks like you have it handled Sandy. You have as much (or more) experience than Ritchie or I, you just never got the bit, so I trust your judgement to handle the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

      Dennis Brown, JCJC777 apologized for reverting bare URLs at 17:11, I left the message above at 21:03, and yet we have this and this at 21:08. No response from JCJC777, this is looking POINTY, and I don't have the tools to do anything further. JCJC777, I have gone out on a limb for you; a response is needed here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I did not think about proper sources at all; apologies if it looked that way. I'm just trying to clean out content that I added in the past that still has incorrect reference formatting (the huge majority has had formatting corrected by bots or other editors). Sorry I don't know what POINTY etc means. I'm just trying to clean up before heading off.JCJC777 (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

So you are saying that you are only reverting your own past insertions? That is a positive sign, but then perhaps you could explain in your edit summaries that these are self-reverts (something like "self revert of poorly formatted citations"). At Multiple sclerosis signs and symptoms, I have reverted all of your work (back to August 16), because I found not only primary sources, but also COPYVIO. I recognize that you added that content before the ANI, but all of the "Abnormal sensations" section was cut-and-paste, so the safest thing to do at this point is remove that entire series of edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

PS, you may also find WP:MEDMOS to contain a lot of information that is essential to understand when editing medical content. For example, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes explains one way that medical content is often organized. Those are only suggestions (not obligatory), but when you encounter a well-developed article that already uses that organization, there is often little reason for changing it (as an example, adding a separate section at the bottom of the MS signs and symptoms article for "Abnormal sensations", when there was already a section where they were covered). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Tks. yes just reverting my own work. (p.s. I have found only very few copyright issues. Think those were out of character whilst grappling with some urgent health issues and fatigue. I don't there there are any further back, but I am checking.) JCJC777 (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Allright, that is good to hear. It would be helpful if you would make your edit summaries as clear as possible, so others will know. Also, your own talk page is a good place to practice correct threading of posts by using the formatting and threading information I linked you to earlier. When discussions get long or confusing, it is a better communication style that allows others to more easily follow conversations. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

JCJC777, continuing the discussion where you are self-reverting your poorly formatted citations, I fear you are going too far. As an example, at Novavax, last January, you inserted text cited to a reliable source (The New York Times is an acceptable source for history of a company), but you did not format the citation. But you did adequately paraphrase the content (there is no copyvio). Later, someone did format the citation, so the article ended up with a very good entry, well cited, no copyvio. So even though that is now good content, today, you reverted it with an edit summary "self revert of poorly formatted citations", even though it is no longer poorly formatted. Further, you removed a named ref, that is, a citation that was used elsewhere in the article, so a bot had to recover the citation. I am afraid you are going to start seeing a lot of complaints unless you slow down and rethink what actually needs to be reverted. What needs to be removed is anything that a) is not reliably sourced, or b) contains copyvio or cut-and-paste text. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

thanks Sandy. I've finished. If people want to put back content I've deleted it is easy for them to do do. Regards JCJC777 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Cirrus cloud for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, this edit here you made adding content regarding his mother was not supported by the reference you added, as it says nothing about his mother at all. So I'm not sure if you added the wrong reference by mistake or what happened there, but I've reverted it for now. TylerBurden (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Inter Mediate, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, and despite the refbombing, it only has one currenlty. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The section and sentence you created at this article did not provide encyclopedic information. You said: The correlation of income levels with life satisfaction and current experience measures of happiness continues to be debated. That is useless content. You would do well to actually read review articles to provide the encyclopedia user with a conclusion.

You also did not format your sources. You have been editing Wikipedia for more than 10 years. Spend a few moments to format all your references correctly, WP:CIT. Zefr (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

JC, I appreciate your support on the talk page for EMDR, but you're going to have to become more familiar with what counts as a reliable source on Wikipedia if you're going to participate effectively, especially for medical topics.

The recommendations of big medical organizations are reliable sources here. Studies, and especially meta-analyses, are also reliable sources. Academic books usually are as well. Stuff like GPT-4 isn't, not even just for medical topics but anywhere on Wikipedia.

If you can find an academic book or study somewhere that directly calls EMDR not pseudoscientific (or equivalents such as "scientific", "evidence-based", etc) please mention it on the talk page and/or add it to the article. Loki (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Loki

thanks.

fully understand ref AI no value. I only put it up for interest - but that was a mistake as has just confused.

I am fully aware I am a kind of annoying primitive idiot ref sourcing and formatting, but generally have found that other kind wikieditors genuinely enjoy doing that key part of the work.

Anyway, this EMDR article is stuck in a really bad place. I'll just hope the system unblocks at some stage. JCJC777 (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove large amounts of content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, without first considering the existing consensus and pursuing discussion on the talk page. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. That paragraph is well-sourced. And such actions should doubtless be discussed on the talk page. This out-and-out blanking in clear opposition to the consensus on that page is just disruptive and serves very little purpose towards achieving consensus. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

ok many thanks bon courage JCJC777 (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is JCJC777. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Courcelles (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

• 1st year is imposed by consensus of uninvolved admins at AE and is an arbitration enforcement action. Any duration after that is a normal admin action by my hand. Courcelles (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, JCJC777. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Inter Mediate, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)